update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that `body` is a full replacement Markdown (not a patch) and that authorization is enforced (403). This provides key behavioral traits beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. The most critical guidance (id source, body behavior, authorization) 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward update action, the description covers the key behavioral expectations. It does not describe the return value, but this is minor for a mutation tool without a specified output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial context for `id` (clarifying it is not the issue index) and for `body` (full replacement Markdown), enhancing understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 edits a comment, specifies the resource (comment) and action (edit), and distinguishes the `id` parameter from the issue `index`, providing a concrete reference to `list_comments` for obtaining the correct ID.

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 specifies that only the comment author or a repo admin can use this tool else a 403 is returned, providing clear authorization context. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but no sibling tool edits comments, so this is sufficient.

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