Edit Comment

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

Annotations already cover non-destructive, read-only=false, idempotent hints. Description adds 'Not gated' (no permission barrier) and reassures editing is not destructive, but does not disclose replacement semantics or error behavior. Some value beyond 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 concise sentences: first states the action and resource scope, second provides a safety note. No filler 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?

For a simple update tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers purpose and safety adequately. It doesn't explain how to obtain comment_id or that text is fully replaced, but schema and sibling comment_list imply these, meeting the needs of a straightforward CRUD operation.

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 already describes id, comment, and comment_id; resource enum is self-explanatory. Description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, maintaining baseline 3 due to high 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?

Uses specific verb 'edit' with explicit resource 'comment' and scope (epic, user story, task, issue). Clearly distinguishes from comment_add and comment_delete by focusing on modifying existing text.

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?

Implies when to use: to change text of an existing comment, as opposed to adding or deleting. Though alternatives are not named, the verb and object make the use case unambiguous. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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