mdl_comments_update

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description usefully adds that host-configured MyDramaList authentication is required and that the operation changes remote data, which is context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying what happens to the prior message text or what a failed auth looks like.

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?

Three short clauses with no padding, and the authentication prerequisite is front-loaded ahead of the caution.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify what fields are editable and what the spoiler flag does. Auth and the explicit-request caution are covered, but the parameter surface is a significant hole.

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 carries the full burden for comment_id, message, and spoiler — and it explains none of them. Only the resource word "Comments" loosely implies comment_id identifies the target comment; the message body, length bounds, and spoiler semantics are left entirely undocumented.

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?

"Comments: update" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no specific verb+resource detail. It never states what is being updated (a comment's message text and spoiler flag) or how that differs from mdl_comments_post, mdl_comments_delete, or mdl_custom_lists_update_comment.

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?

It gives one real constraint — "use only for an explicit user request" — which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no routing against the many sibling comment/review mutation tools, so the agent must infer which write tool applies.

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