Update comment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation on an open-world surface, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only pending comments can be edited and that fields may be updated independently, but says nothing about error behavior for non-pending comments or whether text replaces existing content.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier and optional-field hints packed in without waste.

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?

Adequate for a simple three-field mutation whose annotations carry the safety profile, and 'and/or' clarifies partial updates. Still missing the scheduledAt format and the behavior when a comment is not pending, both of which the agent would need before calling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps two of the three parameters ('text', 'due time' = scheduledAt) but ignores the required commentId and gives no format for scheduledAt, leaving a real gap given zero schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a ... comment'), and narrows scope with 'pending' and the editable fields ('text and/or due time'), which separates it from create_comment and delete_comment. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'pending' implies a precondition for use, and 'and/or' implies partial updates are allowed, which is useful. However, no alternative is named (e.g., edit_inbox_reply vs update_comment) and no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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