swsd_update_comment

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

The description adds 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure' which provides failure behavior beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It also notes the limitation on changing is_private, which is a behavioral constraint not evident from 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?

The description is compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second lists parameters, third adds a limitation, fourth is a concise behavioral flag. No redundant information.

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 description covers the action well but does not mention return value or error handling. Given no output schema, the agent might need to infer outcomes. However, for a simple update tool, this may be adequate.

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 that incident_id accepts both internal id and human-facing number with auto-detection, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that body replaces existing text.

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 'Update the body of an existing SWSD incident comment,' specifying the verb (update), resource (incident comment), and scope (body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like swsd_add_incident_comment which adds new comments.

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?

It explicitly lists required parameters (incident_id, comment_id, body) and provides a key caveat: the is_private flag cannot be changed. This implies when to use and when to avoid. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives but the sibling list provides context.

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