Edit comment

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real value on top: it states that the operation overwrites existing text, that ownership restricts who can call it, and that no new notification fires for prior readers. That last point is a side effect an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ownership scope, then side effects. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none restates the tool name.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, permission, and notification behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (e.g., what happens with a stale comment_id) and whether mentions or formatting survive, but nothing essential is missing.

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 are already documented in the schema, including where board_id and comment_id come from. The description only reinforces "plain text" for the text parameter and adds no new format or constraint detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Replace the text of a comment") and immediately scopes it with "you wrote." That cleanly separates it from add_comment and delete_comment in the sibling list without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

"Others' comments cannot be changed" gives an explicit precondition that tells the agent when the call will be rejected, and "as Edit then Save does in the thread" frames the intended workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (delete_comment for removal, add_comment for new text), so it is clear but not fully routable.

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