update_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'replace' (full overwrite semantics) and the ownership constraint, but it does not disclose what happens if the comment is not found or not owned, nor does it address the openWorldHint=true implication of possible broader side effects.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Replace a comment body.'), and the ownership context is given in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations, this is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return value, error behavior, or explicit parameter mapping. The ownership restriction is stated, but the tool description does not fully equip an agent to anticipate failure modes or response formats.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It only implies that markdown is the new body and comment_id selects the comment; it does not explicitly describe either parameter's role or format. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('replace') with a clear resource ('comment body'), immediately distinguishing it from create_comment, delete_comment, and get_comments. Adding 'You can update your own comments' further clarifies the intended scope, so an agent can accurately identify the tool's function.

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 phrase 'You can update your own comments' implies when it is appropriate to use the tool (editing your own comments) and hints at a restriction, but it does not explicitly contrast with create_comment or delete_comment, nor does it state conditions like 'use this instead of X'. The guidance is present but underdeveloped.

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