update_job_comment

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

No annotations are provided. The description simply says 'update', which is a mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 one short sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specifying; conciseness should not compromise completeness. It could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, mutation), the description is too minimal. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but important context like order of parameters or validation rules is missing.

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 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of parameters beyond their names. 'text' is the comment content, but no format or constraints are given. The description adds no value over the schema.

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 'Update an existing job comment' clearly indicates the verb and resource. It distinguishes from 'add_job_comment' and 'delete_job_comment' by specifying 'update existing', but does not differentiate from other update tools like 'set_job_priority'.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'add_job_comment' or 'delete_job_comment'. There is no mention of prerequisites like requiring job_id and comment_id.

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