Update a comment

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

Annotations only indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing side effects: 'approve' publishes, 'spam' trains the filter, and 'trash' is recoverable. This goes beyond the bare annotation flags and helps an agent anticipate consequences.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details conditional behavior for status values. Every word earns its place, and the most important nuance is 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?

The description fully explains the core function and the nuanced status enum. With no output schema to address and a fully documented input schema, the description is nearly complete for an update tool, though it omits error-handling notes—which are typically out of scope.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description loosely references 'text, author details or moderation status' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('a comment'), and enumerates the updatable aspects (text, author details, moderation status). It also explains the effects of status values, clearly distinguishing it from get_comment, create_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 for modifying existing comments and elaborates on status behavior, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like moderate_comments or states when not to use this tool. The context is clear but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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