Update comment

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable context about authorization (author/admin only) and the 'at least one of' rule, which are not inferable from annotations alone. No contradictions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key constraint. Every word contributes value with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description covers its purpose, permissions, and parameter requirements. It omits return value details, but for a simple update operation this is not a significant gap. Annotations and schema fill the remaining context.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds the important constraint that content and resolved are optional individually but at least one must be provided—this is not enforced by the JSON schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a comment') and clearly defines the two actions: updating the body and/or marking the thread resolved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment.

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?

It provides a clear usage constraint with the author/admin restriction and states the requirement to provide at least one of content/resolved. While it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, the sibling tools make the update role obvious, and the permission note gives practical usage context.

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