save_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'body' is updateable when editing, and creation requires specific fields. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or idempotency, but the core behavior (upsert) is transparent. A minor gap is not explaining the effect of missing optional parameters.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence is purposeful: first states the purpose, second gives update constraints, third gives creation requirements. No redundant words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is quite complete: it covers create/update distinction, required fields, updateable fields, and threading. The 'workspace' parameter is unexplained but may be inferred. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed. A slightly higher score would require workspace explanation.

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. It explains parameters 'id', 'body', 'issue_id', 'project_id', and 'parent_id' with their roles. However, 'workspace' is not mentioned, leaving one of six parameters undocumented. Overall, it adds substantial meaning 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 'Create or update a comment.' It immediately distinguishes the tool's dual purpose and specifies the resource (comment). The distinction between create and update based on 'id' presence is explicit, differentiating it from siblings like list_comments which only read.

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 description gives explicit guidance: pass 'id' to edit, and for creation requires 'body' and either 'issue_id' or 'project_id'. It also explains 'parent_id' for threading. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives like saving issues or creating labels, but the context is clear for comment operations.

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