update-issue-comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't address critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if it overwrites or merges with existing content, what happens to the HTML conversion mentioned in the schema, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff, which is ideal for tool selection.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance. While the schema handles parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly, including their purposes, required status, and the enum for 'access'. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'project_id', 'issue_id', and 'comment_id' form a hierarchy) or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 action ('Update') and target ('an existing comment on an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-issue-comment' and 'delete-issue-comment' by specifying it's for updating existing comments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update-issue' or 'update-issue-worklog' beyond the comment focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing comment IDs), compare to 'create-issue-comment' for new comments, or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate versus deleting and recreating. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and sibling tools.

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