runrunit_update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the mutation affects the comment's text, which is transparent about the primary effect. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or return behavior, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.

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, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral guidance.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is enough to construct a basic call. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance about the comment lifecycle or when to prefer sibling tools. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Comment ID' and 'New comment text'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a comment's text') with a platform qualifier, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It can be distinguished from sibling comment tools like create_comment, delete_comment, and comment_reaction without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for existing comments only, that create_comment should be used for new comments, or that delete_comment should be used for removal. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and general update semantics.

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