Update Pull Request Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that it updates a comment. It does not disclose permission requirements, error handling, or side effects, but does not contradict annotations either.

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 structured with a one-line summary followed by an Args section and Returns line. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant 'Args:' label. Overall, it covers essential information without fluff.

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 5 parameters (4 required) and an output schema, the description explains all parameters and return type. However, it lacks context about validation (e.g., comment existence), error conditions, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool with idempotentHint, some additional behavior details would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines each parameter: repo_slug, pull_request_id, comment_id, content (with 'markdown format' clarification), and workspace (with optionality and default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain titles and types, enabling correct usage.

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 'Update a comment on a pull request,' specifying the verb and resource. Among sibling tools like add_pull_request_comment, delete_pull_request_comment, and reopen_pull_request_comment, it is uniquely identified as the update operation, distinguishing itself well.

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 lists required parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the comment must already exist, nor does it contrast with add or delete operations. The usage context is implied by the resource type but lacks clarity on prerequisites or exclusions.

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