swsd_update_comment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the is_private limitation, the explicit 'WRITE' tag, and the note that it does not retry on transient failure. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the key constraint and a behavior warning. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the parameters, the visibility limitation, and the retry behavior. It does not describe the return value, but that is commonly omitted for updates and not critical given the simplicity. The tool's low complexity and full schema coverage make this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely names the parameters ('Pass incident_id, comment_id, and the new body') without adding new semantics. The schema already fully documents body type, incident_id format, and comment_id constraints. The description does not go beyond that.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update the body of an existing SWSD incident comment.' It specifies exactly what is modified (body) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like swsd_add_incident_comment (create) and swsd_update_incident (update incident fields). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states the required parameters and gives a clear operational constraint: the is_private flag cannot be changed, requiring delete-and-recreate instead. It also flags the write behavior and absence of retry on transient failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the usage domain clear.

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