comments_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('update') but does not explain whether all properties are replaced, how partial updates are handled, what happens if the comment_id does not exist, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and provides a concise list of relevant properties. 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?

The tool is a simple update with 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description omits behavior like whether optional parameters (assignee, resolved) can be updated independently or must accompany comment_text. It also doesn't indicate response or error behavior. Understanding the required comment_id/comment_text is left to the schema, which is reasonable but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists fields ('text, assignee, and resolved status') already documented in the schema, adding no extra semantic detail about parameter usage, types, or relationship to the update operation.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing ClickUp comment'), and its scope ('properties including text, assignee, and resolved status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comments_replies_create and comments_delete.

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 conveys the tool's intended use—modifying an existing comment's properties—which is implicitly distinct from creating or deleting comments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks full exclusionary context.

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