Update an existing comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, telling the agent this is a mutating operation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say the existing body is overwritten, that only the author/owner can edit, or how partial updates behave. Minimal added value over structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it omits useful detail rather than being verbose.

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 destructive update tool, the description is thin: it doesn't communicate that the comment body is replaced, that the operation is tied to a specific team context, or that the author permission may be required. Annotations cover the safety profile, which partially compensates, but a destructive mutation warrants more.

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 four parameters (commentId, bodyMd, user, teamName) are already documented in the schema, including the owner-permission note and the teamName lookup hint. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing comment') scoped to an esa team by comment ID, which cleanly separates it from esa_create_comment and esa_delete_comment. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus esa_create_comment or esa_get_comment, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the owner permission the 'user' field requires. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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