edit_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only your own comments can be edited and that authentication is required, but says nothing about whether edits are destructive/replace content, whether they are reversible, or any rate or permission limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb-resource pair front-loaded and the auth caveat appended; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a destructive-shaped mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, yet the description supplies only two facts. Critical details for calling it correctly — whether the edit is full replacement, error behavior on foreign comments, and what the response returns — are absent.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. The agent gets no explanation of what 'content' replaces, whether comment_id accepts a bare ID or a prefixed identifier, or the 10000-char limit semantics beyond the schema constraint.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('comment') and adds the ownership scope ('your own'), which distinguishes it from edit_post and delete_comment. It does not explicitly name or route to a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(requires user auth)' signals a precondition, which is useful context for selecting this tool over read-only siblings. However, there is no guidance on when this is the right call versus edit_post, delete_comment, or reply_to_comment, so usage is only implied.

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