Edit a comment

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: Wiki.js keeps no comment history, so the previous text is permanently lost. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the consequence. It does not restate the annotations or contradict them.

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 contain the essential action and the key consequence with no filler. The destructive caveat is front-loaded right after the main verb, making the description easy to parse.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple mutation tool: it states what is changed, that the change is irreversible, and the schema fully covers the confirm_token flow and parameter constraints. The only minor omission is an explicit note that a confirmation token may be needed before the replacement is actually applied, but that is already present in the schema.

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 the schema already documents comment_id, content, and confirm_token with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('replaces') and resource ('the body of a comment'), making the operation unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from delete_comment (removes the whole comment) and create_comment (adds a new comment), even without naming them.

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 clearly implies this tool is for modifying the text of an existing comment, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over create_comment or delete_comment. There is no direct mention of alternatives or conditions that would rule them out.

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