Edit comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention permissions, error handling, idempotency, or effects on related resources, providing no extra 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, earning its place by stating the core function without fluff.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It lacks details on how parameters interact, what the update actually changes, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.

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 only 20% (only project_id has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It fails to clarify the roles of iid, note_id, target_type, or body, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.

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 'Edits an existing comment.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool modifies an existing comment rather than creating or deleting one. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_note and gitlab_delete_issue, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply restates the function implied by the tool name and title, offering no additional context for selection.

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