edit-comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical context for a tool that modifies data in a collaborative environment.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details that would help the agent.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the editing operation's scope, required inputs, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a collaborative system with rich data structures, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', 'commentId', or the complex 'data' object represent, their formats, or relationships. The agent must rely entirely on the schema structure without semantic guidance.

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 'Edit a Liveblocks comment' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Liveblocks comment'), but it's vague about what editing entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-comment' and 'delete-comment' by specifying editing, but doesn't clarify what aspects of a comment can be edited or how this differs from similar tools like 'edit-thread-metadata'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing comment IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update-room' or 'edit-thread-metadata'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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