update-change-request-comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says an existing comment is updated, without disclosing ownership/permission requirements, whether the body is fully replaced, error behavior for missing comments, or any other side effects. It does at least make clear this is a mutating operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant scaffolding. It is concise, though much of its wording mirrors the tool name and only 'existing' adds meaningful distinction.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unaddressed: expected return value, error cases, permissions, and how updates behave. The schema covers the parameters, but the tool description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the operation's behavior.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema documents commentId and the requestBody.body string, but the tool description does not help clarify the requestBody wrapper or compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Updates') and a specific resource ('existing Change Request comment'), which clearly indicates the operation. It is close to restating the tool name, but it does communicate the core action and target unambiguously.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add-change-request-comment, delete-change-request-comment, or update-change-request. The word 'existing' only implicitly suggests it is not for creating a comment, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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