update_inventory_product_comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not needed for those. The description adds a behavioral constraint: 'The commentId must belong to the resolved product', which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavior like permissions, side effects, or whether the update replaces or merges with existing content.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose with no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple update mutation. It covers the core operation and a key constraint. However, it could improve by specifying what the tool returns (e.g., the updated comment) and any side effects, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 the schema itself documents all parameters. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the constraint on commentId, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for 'product', 'category', or 'body'.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'comment attached directly to an inventory product'. It adds a specific constraint that the commentId must belong to the resolved product. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_comment or update_drive_file_comment, though the resource specificity helps.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_inventory_product_comment or update_comment. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the product and comment must exist, nor does it provide context about use cases or when to avoid this tool.

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