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 indicates a mutating, replacing action and the need for an existing comment, but it does not disclose return behavior, permissions, or error scenarios.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff, and the core operation is front-loaded. The follow-up instruction about comment_id adds practical value without 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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and ID sourcing but omits return value, auth requirements, and failure behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies where comment_id comes from and implies the comment parameter is the replacement text, but it does not explain task_id's role or provide details on format or constraints.

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 action, 'Replace the text of an existing comment,' with a clear resource and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment.

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 implies usage through 'existing comment' and gives the operational hint to obtain comment_id from list_comments. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related comment tools or mention any exclusions.

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