update_comment_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys mutation and adds the useful unit clarification 'Times are timeline seconds', but it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether null clears a value, or how track_ids_json is interpreted.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids filler. The clause 'Times are timeline seconds' earns its place by disambiguating the timeline parameters, though 'tracks' could be worded more precisely.

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?

This is a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverageikuha. The description is too thin for an agent to call it correctly: it does not explain how to supply tracks, whether partial updates are supported, or what nulls mean, even though an output schema is present.

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. It adds some meaning by mapping body/tracks/timeline anchor to parameters and clarifying the unit for timeline times, but it leaves track_ids_json format, null semantics, and required fields undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('comment') and names the updatable fields: body, tracks, and timeline anchor. It is distinct enough from siblings like add_comment_tool, delete_comment_tool, and get_comment_tool, though it does not explicitly say 'existing comment'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_comment_tool, delete_comment_tool, or resolve_comment_tool. The context is implied by the name 'update_comment_tool', but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are stated.

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