bb_edit_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the authorization constraint and that content replaces the old one. This is adequate, though could mention if edit is irreversible or any side effects. Still, it provides key behavioral insight.

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 concise: one short paragraph followed by an Args list. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose (purpose, behavior, constraint, source of IDs). No redundant or vague statements. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the action, constraints, and parameter roles sufficiently. It mentions the return behavior and auth limitations. For a tool with 5 parameters and a key constraint, it is comprehensive without being verbose.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the replacement effect ("Replaces the comment's content") and that the tool returns the updated comment, which supplements the schema descriptions. Some repetition exists but it's minimal.

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 the body of an existing Bitbucket pull request comment, specifying the verb (edit) and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bb_create_pull_request_comment and bb_delete_pull_request_comment.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: only the comment's author may edit, otherwise authorization fails. Also advises get comment ids from bb_get_pull_request_comments, helping the agent understand prerequisites and alternatives.

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