rx_edit_comment

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the new text wholly replaces the old ('новый текст целиком заменяет прежний'), ownership is enforced, and a user-confirmation step is required before invoking. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. what happens with an invalid or foreign comment_id), so it falls short of a 5.

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 tightly front-loaded: verb+scope first, then the ID requirement and where to find it, then sibling routing, then the confirmation rule. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema to explain and a flat three-parameter input, the description covers everything an agent needs: identity scope, replacement semantics, ID provenance, sibling routing, and the user-confirmation obligation. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 (ticket_id, comment_id, text) are already documented with their formats and provenance, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the replacement semantics of 'text', which is already stated in the schema property description, so there is no meaningful lift beyond structured data.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Исправить текст своего комментария к карточке agile-доски') and immediately constrains scope to the caller's own comments ('Чужие комментарии не меняет'), which separates it from every other comment-related sibling. An agent can distinguish it from rx_comment_ticket and rx_delete_comment without opening 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives by intent: 'Добавить новый комментарий: rx_comment_ticket, удалить: rx_delete_comment'. It also tells the agent where to source the required IDs ('комментарии с Id показывает rx_ticket') and adds a procedural prerequisite ('Перед вызовом покажите пользователю прежний и новый текст'). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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