Edit Tracker entity comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'returns the updated comment,' which is useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about notification side effects (the schema's notify/notify_author flags) beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the identifier-sourcing hint placed afterward. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage, 100% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description covers action, return, and the key identifier precondition. The remaining gaps (notification defaults, permission requirements) are mitigated by annotations and the richly documented 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds sourcing information for comment_id, which is already stated in the schema's comment_id description ('from entities_comments_list'), so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a comment on a Tracker entity') plus the return value, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named tracker_comments_update (issue comments) or tracker_entities_comments_create/delete, leaving sibling selection partly to the name alone.

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 gives one concrete precondition — comment_id must come from ``entities_comments_list`` — which is genuinely actionable. However it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over tracker_comments_update or the other comment tools, and no mention of prerequisites like edit permissions.

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