edit_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the entire body is replaced with new content in Ed XML format, which is important. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens on invalid input or non-existent comments.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise arg list. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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 is simple with two params and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality and argument semantics adequately. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites beyond ID source are not critical for this simple mutation.

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 0%, but the description compensates well. It explains comment_id as 'from get_thread results' and defines content as 'New body in Ed XML format', adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema types. It could provide more details on constraints, but it sufficiently clarifies parameter purpose.

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 clearly states 'Edit an existing comment's content' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies it replaces the entire body. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_comment and edit_thread by specifying comment content modification.

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 by saying 'Edit an existing comment's content' and notes the comment_id comes from get_thread results, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Some context is given, but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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