Edit Collection Comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by noting it operates 'via web session,' implying authentication requirements, and that it edits 'your' comment, implying an ownership restriction. But it does not disclose error behavior or what happens on success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, scope, and implementation detail in compact form, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly adequate: it identifies the action and session requirement. However, with no output schema, the description does not mention the return value, and it leaves potential edge cases like editing a non-owned comment undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explicitly explain that comment_id identifies the target comment or that body is the new text, though the plain property names and 'Edit your collection comment' make these meanings reasonably inferable. This is minimal added value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Edit'), the resource ('collection comment'), and the scope ('your'), distinguishing it from editing mod comments or posting new comments. Mentioning the underlying 'UpdateComment mutation' adds further precision without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The tool is clearly for editing an existing collection comment, which implicitly separates it from siblings like post_collection_comment, delete_collection_comment, and edit_mod_comment. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over those alternatives or any stated prerequisites beyond 'web session.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.