edit_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the author-only restriction, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not in the annotations. It doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications to other users) or whether the edit is a full replacement, but the idempotentHint covers repeatability. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a key constraint and parameter explanations. The Args/Returns structure is clear and scannable. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the Returns line, but it's well-organized and every sentence 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 simple 3-parameter edit operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the author-only restriction, and parameter semantics. It doesn't explain the return value in detail, but the output schema exists. It also doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if the comment doesn't exist), but that's a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 explains each parameter: file_id is the numeric file ID, comment_id is the comment ID to edit, and message is the new comment text with a max length of 1000 characters. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, especially the max length constraint and the role of each ID.

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 action ('Edit a comment on a file') and identifies the resource (a comment on a file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment by focusing on editing an existing comment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other edit-type tools, but the resource is specific enough.

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 provides a clear context: editing a comment on a file, and notes the author-only restriction. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or delete_comment, but the action is self-evident. The author-only note is a useful usage constraint, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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