Edit Comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the write-safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond the annotations: the ownership requirement ('your own comments') and a quota cost of 50 units, which serves as a rate-limit/cost disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the quota constraint on its own line. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What an agent needs to invoke it (target comment, new text, ownership restriction, quota cost) is present; only the interaction with sibling comment tools is left unexplained.

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 the schema already explains 'text' (new text), 'comment' (ID or link) and 'my_channel' (channel selector). The description only echoes 'text' and does not enrich the comment-ID or channel-selector semantics, which matches the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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 and resource ('Replace the text of ... comments or replies') with an ownership constraint ('your own'). It is clearly distinguishable from post_comment, reply_to_comment and delete_comment, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 post_comment, reply_to_comment, or delete_comment, nor any prerequisite (e.g. comment must exist and be editable). Usage is only implied by the verb 'replace'.

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