update_pull_request_review_comment

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the meaningful detail that the body is sent through stdin and is not audited. The idempotentHint=true aligns with the expectedUpdatedAt concurrency mechanism (retry-safe design). The 'not audited' disclosure is valuable behavioral context beyond structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The description front-loads the core action ('Edit an inline review comment body'), then adds the concurrency check and the stdin/audit caveats. Perfectly compact.

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?

The tool has 7 params, no output schema, and only 14% schema description coverage, so the description carries heavy weight. It covers the essential behavioral aspects (edit, concurrency check, stdin, non-audited). The idempotentHint annotation plus the expectedUpdatedAt mechanism give the agent enough to invoke correctly. Not a 5 because it doesn't explain what response the edit returns or how to obtain the expectedUpdatedAt value.

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 only 14% (only repository has a description), so the description must compensate. While the description doesn't detail individual parameters, it explains the critical 'expectedUpdatedAt' parameter (concurrency check) and 'body' (sent through stdin, not audited). The tool name itself clarifies 'reviewCommentId' and 'pullRequestNumber'. For a 7-param tool with minimal schema descriptions, the description adds the most essential parameter semantics.

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 tool edits an inline review comment body and mentions the expectedUpdatedAt concurrency check. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create/reply/delete review comments) by specifying 'edit' and the concurrency check mechanism. A 5 is not earned because it doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_pull_request_review_comment or other review comment modifiers, though the verb+resource is specific.

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 usage context (editing an existing comment with an expectedUpdatedAt for optimistic concurrency) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't mention when delete/create would be preferred, though the 'expectedUpdatedAt concurrency check' hints that it's used when concurrent edits are a concern. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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