update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The only extra detail 'uses PUT' is a protocol note, not an explanation of side effects (e.g., overwriting content), authentication needs, or whether the update is a full replacement. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence stating the action with a useful technical clarification in parentheses. No redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple comment update with a fully described schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not address potential failure scenarios, return values (since there is no output schema), or the optional changeRequestId parameter beyond the schema, leaving some contextual 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it relies on the well-described properties. No additional context is provided (e.g., how changeRequestId interacts with the update).

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 an existing comment' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_comment (create) and delete_comment (remove). The added 'uses PUT' provides relevant technical detail without obscuring the core purpose.

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 implies the tool is for updating existing comments but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'to create a comment, use post_comment'). While the purpose is evident from the name, no direct guidance on when to choose this tool is provided.

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