update_task_comment

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

There are no annotations, and the description merely states the update action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether existing values are overwritten, permission requirements, or any side effects. It adds no transparency beyond the name.

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 short phrase, but it under-specifies by repeating the tool name. It lacks informative content that would justify its brevity, so it is not effectively concise.

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 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only covers the basic action. It does not explain the update behavior, required identifiers, or notification implications, leaving the agent with significant inferential gaps.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics, but the schema carries the full burden.

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 'Обновить комментарий к задаче' is a direct translation of the tool name, providing no additional information. It is a tautology that restates the name, so it fails to differentiate from siblings beyond the resource naming.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_task_comment or delete_comment. No context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided.

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