Edit Comment

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

The description states 'Edit an existing comment', but adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotation already provides (destructiveHint: true). There is no mention of permissions, whether the edit replaces or merges content, idempotency, or potential side effects. The annotation already flags destructiveness, but the description fails to add any extra context.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and subject. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it omits any supplementary context that could be useful (e.g., mention of visibility parameter). Still, it is appropriately concise.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. The schema and destructiveHint annotation cover parameter details and safety, but the description lacks any broader context such as typical use cases, relationship to add_comment, or consequences. Given the tool's simplicity, it barely reaches a minimum viable level, but there is room for improvement.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on the parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient detail (e.g., body is 'Updated comment text in Markdown format', issue_key has a pattern, visibility has an example). No additional meaning is added by the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Edit' with a clear resource: 'an existing comment on a Jira issue'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_comment' by specifying 'existing', and from other issue-level edit tools like 'jira_update_issue' by targeting comments specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. The only implied usage is from the tool name and description, but there is no explicit context such as 'Use this when you need to modify a comment' or mention of alternatives like jira_add_comment.

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