Edit an existing Weeek task comment in Markdown to correct or update it in place, using comment_id from the task's comment list.
Rewrite one of your comments (Markdown), keeping it in place instead of posting a correction after it. comment_id comes from weeek_list_task_comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | New comment body as Markdown. | |
| task_id | Yes | ||
| comment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: the comment is rewritten in place (old text is replaced, not appended), and the 'one of your comments' phrasing hints at an ownership constraint. It says nothing about required permissions, behavior on non-owned/missing comments, or whether the update is reversible, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key behavioral nuance, then the identifier provenance. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, and one of three parameters (task_id) is undocumented anywhere. For a simple in-place edit this is close to adequate, but an agent still lacks permission/ownership semantics and any indication of what the call returns.
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 only 33%; only 'text' is documented (as Markdown). The description compensates partially by explaining that comment_id must come from weeek_list_task_comments, but task_id is left with no semantic explanation in either place. Baseline-plus-value but not full compensation.
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 (rewrite) and resource (one of your comments), and clarifies the key semantic difference from posting a new comment: the edit happens in place. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (weeek_add_task_comment / weeek_delete_task_comment), but the 'instead of posting a correction' framing makes the distinction inferable.
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 a clear when-to-use condition: fix an existing comment rather than appending a correction. It also tells the agent where comment_id comes from (weeek_list_task_comments), which routes it to the right prerequisite call. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.