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 behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key authorization requirement—only the comment author can update—which is essential for an agent to anticipate failures. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but for a simple update operation, this constraint is a high-value transparency element.

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 just two sentences and 15 words, front-loading the core action ('Update a comment') and immediately following with the key constraint. There is no filler or redundant information; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 fully documented parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the primary purpose and the critical authorization caveat. It does not specify what the response contains (e.g., updated comment object), but that absence is partially mitigated by the straightforward nature of an update operation. It is functional but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: both parameters ('id' and 'text') are described with meaningful details ('ID of the resource' and 'Updated comment text'). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'comment', clearly indicating a mutation operation on an existing comment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments by focusing on the update action, and adds a critical constraint (author-only) that narrows its 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 clearly implies this tool is for modifying an existing comment, contrasting with create/delete/list siblings. It also provides context about when the operation is permitted (only by the author), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it (e.g., 'use create_comment for new comments'). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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