Update pull request comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context by stating 'Only the comment's author can edit it,' which indicates a potential failure condition. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the update is idempotent, how errors are reported if the comment doesn't exist, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence front-loaded with the core action ('Edits the body of an existing comment') followed by the key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information or filler. It is an exemplary model of brevity and clarity.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the resource it acts on, and a critical authorization constraint. The schema fills in parameter details, and the sibling list clarifies it is specifically for pull request comments. It lacks some depth (e.g., response format, error cases), but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it effectively.

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 80%, which is high (>80% threshold), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already describes 'content' as 'New comment body (Markdown), replaces the existing text,' and the fallback behavior of repoSlug and workspace. The names of pullRequestId and commentId are self-explanatory.

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 tool's specific action: 'Edits the body of an existing comment.' This uses a specific verb ('edits') and a clear resource ('body of an existing comment'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_update_pull_request_description (updates the description) and bb_create_pull_request_comment (creates a new comment). The added author-only restriction further disambiguates its scope.

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 conveys clear usage context: it is for editing an existing comment's body, and it explicitly notes that only the comment's author can edit it, which serves as an implicit exclusion for non-authors. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the author restriction, so it stops short of a 5.

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