update_journal_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the alpha status, version-dependent availability, and the meaning of a 404, which are valuable behavioral details beyond the basic 'edit' operation. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the output schema exists so return value details are not required. The addition of the journal ID pitfall further enhances transparency.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, a clarification sentence, an alpha warning, and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds necessary context, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 scalar parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, a common pitfall, and a version caveat. It also references get_issue for finding the journal ID, making it self-sufficient for a typical agent.

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. It does so with an explicit Args section explaining both parameters: journal_id is 'ID of the history entry (journal)' and text is 'new text for the comment.' It also clarifies the journal_id vs issue ID distinction, adding real semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Edit the text of a comment already posted to an issue's history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue or get_issue, and the rest of the description reinforces the scope.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool correctly by explaining that the journal ID is the 'id' field in 'journals' visible via get_issue, and explicitly warns not to confuse it with the issue ID. It also gives a practical hint about 404 responses for older versions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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