Update a Linear comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is an update, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether the body must be non-empty, whether the comment must belong to the caller, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It earns its place with no wasted words, but it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context. Still, for what it attempts to convey, it is well-structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to be complete. An agent knows the tool updates a comment body by UUID, but lacks information about required permissions, idempotency, response format, or constraints on the body. Sibling tools like linear_add_comment and linear_delete_comment exist, so usage boundaries should be clarified.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only clarifies that 'id' is a UUID, but it does not explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., plain text vs. markdown, length limits) or whether 'id' refers to the comment UUID specifically. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a comment body') and identifies the identifier type ('by its UUID'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like linear_add_comment or linear_delete_comment. The title reinforces the same message without adding new differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool is for editing an existing comment, while linear_add_comment is for creating one, or linear_delete_comment for removing one. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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