update_merge_request_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the update replaces the entire comment, whether it preserves formatting, or what happens if the note_id does not exist. There is no mention of permissions or rate limits. The description only says 'Update' without any side effects or constraints.

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 and structured with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then lists parameters without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan. The length is appropriate for a simple update operation.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, simple update) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, parameters, and return type. However, it omits usage guidance and behavioral details like error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap that could affect correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations: 'GitLab project ID', 'Merge request IID', 'Note ID to update', and 'Updated comment text'. These add meaning beyond the bare schema property names, clarifying the role of each. However, it does not provide types, constraints, or interactions between parameters, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Update an existing merge request comment') that is distinct from sibling tools like add, get, reply, or update_merge_request. The Args section reinforces the target is a specific note_id, so purpose is unambiguous. It lacks an explicit differentiator from siblings, but the verb 'update' against a comment already implies modification vs. creation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool vs. alternatives like add_merge_request_comment or reply_to_merge_request_comment. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., existence of the note), or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the action alone.

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