edit_comment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description need not re-state safety. It adds the behavioral constraint about ownership, which is useful context beyond the schema. No mention of failure modes or side effects, but annotations cover the key behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the restriction follows in the second sentence.

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 mutation tool with fully documented parameters and annotations indicating idempotence and non-destructive behavior, the description covers the key usage constraints. It does not describe the return value, but with no output schema and straightforward edit semantics, that is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for text, video_id, and comment_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what 'replacement text' means beyond the schema's own description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('one of your own comments'), immediately distinguishing this from delete_comment and add_comment. The clarifying restriction 'You cannot edit someone else's' reinforces the scope and differentiates it from a generic edit tool.

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 clearly states the tool is for editing your own comments, and warns that editing someone else's is not allowed. However, it does not name alternatives such as delete_comment or list_comments, so the agent is left to infer when exactly to choose this over siblings. This is sufficient context but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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