Edit a Facebook comment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the critical detail that the previous text is not kept and that calling without `confirmed` returns a preview with nothing sent. That preview-then-confirm workflow is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, destructive effect, and the two-step call protocol. The approval flow is front-loaded as the key operational constraint.

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?

With an output schema present and all four parameters documented in the schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: platform restriction, ownership restriction, irreversibility, and the mandatory approval sequence.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's `confirmed` description already explains the preview/approval semantics. The description reinforces the workflow but adds no parameter details beyond what the structured schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace the text of'), the exact resource ('a comment the Page itself wrote'), and the platform scope ('Facebook only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_to_comment and create_comment without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives strong scoping conditions: only the Page's own comments and only on Facebook, plus a mandatory approval workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., use reply_to_comment for other users' comments), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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