update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it indicates auth requirements and a 403 error for unauthorized users. It also notes that the body is a full replacement (not patch). However, it could mention whether the comment's timestamps are updated or if the tool returns the updated object.

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, highly efficient. The critical information (id source, body semantics, auth restrictions) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but for a simple mutation tool that is acceptable. It covers the essential behavioral aspects: what the tool does, how to identify the target, and who can perform the action. It is reasonably complete.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'id' is not the issue index and must be obtained from list_comments, and that 'body' is full replacement Markdown. It briefly mentions defaults for repo and owner.

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 by its id, distinguishes the id from the issue index, and explicitly states that the body is full replacement Markdown. It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_comment or list_comments by focusing on the edit action.

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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (editing a comment), how to obtain the correct id (from list_comments), and who can use it (author or repo admin). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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