edit_mesh_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the useful nuance that 'withdraw' is reversible via 'bring_back', which reframes the destructive flag as a soft-delete rather than a hard removal. The tier/pricing sentence conveys an entitlement gate (feature only on owned designs for Free) but is written in cryptic shorthand ('Pro: ✓ · Business: ✓') that costs more than it clarifies. Neither the effect of withdrawal on thread visibility nor the error behavior is described.

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 first sentence is front-loaded, tight, and earns its place. The second sentence is a pricing/tier teaser whose symbols and separators are hard to parse and read as boilerplate rather than operational guidance, diluting an otherwise clean definition.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers the key thing an agent must know: you may only change your own comment, and withdrawal is undoable. What remains unstated — whether a withdrawn comment stays visible in the thread, and how it interacts with resolve/reopen thread flows — is minor but would have been cheap to add.

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 all three parameters, including the action values and the conditional requirement on body, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the mode names but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (change), an owned resource (a comment you wrote), and enumerates the three supported modes: re-word, withdraw, bring back. That maps cleanly onto the 'edit'/'withdraw'/'bring_back' action values, so an agent knows what it is for. It stops short of naming disambiguating siblings such as reply_to_comment, resolve_comment_thread, or reopen_comment_thread, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Change a comment you wrote' implies an ownership precondition and the three modes imply when each is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to alternatives like reply_to_comment for adding a response or resolve_comment_thread for closing a thread. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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