dooray_update_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing comment' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update') and resource ('comment'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and 4 undocumented parameters, the description should do more to explain behavior and parameter usage. It's barely adequate for a basic update operation but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (just titles like 'Project Id'). It doesn't explain what 'log_id' represents, how 'content' should be formatted, or the relationships between 'project_id', 'post_id', and 'log_id'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('an existing comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dooray_add_comment' (create) and 'dooray_delete_comment' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dooray_add_comment' for new comments or 'dooray_list_comments' for viewing. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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