Update Comment

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds real value by stating the operation replaces rather than appends and preserves the thread, but says nothing about permissions or the fact that annotations mark it non-idempotent, which is mildly at odds with 'replace' semantics.

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 sentences, both load-bearing; the primary action is front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation follows immediately.

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 an output schema and fully documented params, the description covers the essentials for a simple two-parameter mutation. It could add a note on content format expectations or permissions, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the provenance of the id. The description adds no information about the string-vs-object content alternatives, so 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 and resource ('Replace the content of an existing comment') and immediately contrasts with create_comment, so an agent can distinguish it from the other comment siblings without reading schemas.

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 new-thread creation to create_comment and implicitly scopes this to existing comments. It does not mention when to use delete_comment or resolve_comment instead, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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