update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists updatable fields and parameters. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), error behavior, permissions required, or whether the widget must exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before the args list. No filler or redundant content.

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 adequately explains all required parameters and the core operation. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, partial update semantics, permissions) and does not reference related tools for obtaining mural_id/widget_id. Given the tool has an output schema and nested objects, the description is minimally viable but not rich.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: mural_id, widget_id, and properties with a list of supported fields (x, y, message, referenceWidgetId, parentId). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a comment widget on a mural.' It specifies the resource (comment widget) and the action (update), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update other widget types (e.g., update_sticky_note, update_shape).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that other widget types have dedicated update tools, nor does it give context about prerequisites like needing to first retrieve the mural or widget. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the verb 'update'.

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