update_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. It discloses that the tool mutates an existing comment, but it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites the entire comment or appends, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the comment does not exist.

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, focused sentence that clearly communicates the tool's core function. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the essential operation is stated immediately.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is minimal for a mutation tool. It omits important operational context such as expected return behavior, error conditions, and the relationship between actionId and the comment being updated.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing comment on a Trello card'). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like add_comment and delete_comment without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment or delete_comment. An agent must infer that updating requires an existing comment, and no context is given about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.

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