update_entity_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Update a comment' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites the existing text, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose in a concise manner.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. It could be enhanced with a note about updating existing comments vs creating new ones, but it is not necessary for a basic update operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it simply lists the entity types which match the entity_type schema 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 'Update a comment on a project, portfolio, or goal' clearly states the verb (update), resource (comment), and specific scope (project/portfolio/goal). This distinguishes it from the sibling update_comment (likely for issue comments) and other comment tools like add_entity_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?

Usage context is implied by the entity types mentioned, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't state 'use this instead of update_comment for entity comments' or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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