pipedrive_note_comments_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail about the content_html payload format (no CDATA), but says nothing about permissions/ownership, whether the update fully replaces existing content, or what happens on invalid comment_id. Partial disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with the core action first. The second sentence duplicates what the content_html schema description already states, so it is slightly redundant rather than purely additive.

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?

Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't re-explain them. However, for a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool it omits mutation semantics (replacement behavior, permissions, error cases), leaving the agent with a minimally viable picture.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's own content_html description already covers the plain-HTML/CDATA guidance, so the description largely restates structured data rather than adding meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update a comment on a note'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the create/delete/get/list comment siblings by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or clarifying scope (e.g. that it only replaces content, not author/timestamps).

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to update an existing comment versus creating a new one, nor any prerequisite such as needing the comment_id from a prior list/get call. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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