update-task-comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It reveals critical behavioral traits: the 'IMPORTANT LIMITATION' about email comments, the immediate modification effect ('The comment will be modified immediately'), URL pattern recognition capabilities, authentication requirements (implied through file upload API reference), and the success message return. These go well beyond what the input schema provides.

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 well-structured with clear sections (limitation, URL pattern, parameters, workflow, format, examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed examples and external link could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, but the length approaches the upper bound of appropriate conciseness.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, limitations, prerequisites, parameter semantics, workflow, format details, examples, and return information. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a write operation, but that's strongly implied by 'update' and 'modifies.'

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 significant value beyond the schema: it clarifies that projectId, taskId, and commentId are all 'REQUIRED' (reinforcing schema), explains the optional nature of body vs attachFileIds ('you can provide either... or both'), provides detailed content format guidance with mimeType enum context, and includes concrete examples showing parameter usage. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 the specific action ('modifies the content or attachments'), resource ('existing task comment'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create-task-comment' (for creating new comments) and 'get-task-comment-list' (for listing comments). The opening sentence directly answers 'what does this tool do?'

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use get-task-comment-list to find the comment ID you want to update' (prerequisite), 'Comments created from incoming emails CANNOT be modified' (exclusion), and the workflow section outlines the complete usage sequence. The description clearly distinguishes this from creation and listing operations.

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