bb_update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation ('Edit the text') and the return value ('Returns the updated comment'), but it does not discuss reversibility, permissions, side effects, or whether the edit can fail under certain conditions.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds a useful return-value note, with every clause contributing meaningful information.

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 five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains almost none of the identifier semantics or invocation context. An agent cannot fully determine how to construct a valid request beyond guessing from parameter names.

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 only 20%, with 'text' being the only described parameter. The description reiterates that 'text' is edited but provides no explanatory value for projectKey, repoSlug, prId, or commentId, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names alone.

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 identifies the resource ('existing comment') and the target attribute ('text'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that create, delete, resolve, or list comments.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bb_create_pull_request_comment, bb_delete_comment, or bb_resolve_comment. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this the correct choice.

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