update_change_request_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states which fields can be updated but does not disclose behavior when neither optional field is supplied, permission requirements, side effects, or reversibility.

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 short sentences deliver the core operation and the updateable aspects with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary context. The description is efficiently front-loaded.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable: required identifiers are clear and parameters are fully schema-documented. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case behavior, so it is 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description's mention of content and resolved status mirrors the schema without adding deeper semantics like default behavior, validation rules, or relationships between parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' with the resource 'comment on a change request' and explicitly scopes the operation to comment content and/or resolved status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_change_request_comment and list_change_request_comments.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'update'—this tool modifies an existing comment rather than creating or listing one—but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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