updatePullRequestComment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Edit' – it doesn't mention whether the edit is a full replacement, whether it's reversible, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for its length it's efficient.

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 simple edit tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'content' replaces the entire comment or if there are any constraints (e.g., markdown support, length limits). The lack of an output schema means the agent doesn't know what the response will contain, but that's not the description's job per the rubric. A 3 is fair – adequate but with minor gaps.

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 documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description 'Edit a discussion comment on a pull request' clearly states the verb (edit) and resource (discussion comment on a pull request). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addPullRequestComment and deletePullRequestComment, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'Edit' is specific enough to differentiate from create/delete siblings.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need to modify an existing comment on a pull request. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like addPullRequestComment or deletePullRequestComment. The context is clear but exclusions are absent, so it's a 3.

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