Update BugSmash comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PATCH, implying partial update) and the requirement that at least one field besides commentId must be provided. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or return format, which could be important for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the endpoint and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what fields can be updated, the endpoint, and the requirement for a non-commentId field. It is slightly lacking in usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over other sibling tools), but overall sufficient.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a critical constraint not in the schema: 'At least one field besides commentId is required.' This meaningfully clarifies parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource ('a comment's text, status, e.g. mark Resolved, priority, or privacy'), and explicitly maps to PATCH /comment/{commentId}. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_feedback and post_reply, which are read/create operations.

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 provides clear context: use this to update an existing comment's fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all read or create operations, so the purpose is implied. The mention of PATCH and the required-field constraint further clarify when this tool is appropriate.

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