update_issue_comment

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

Annotations are rich here (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered by structured data. But the description adds nothing: it does not say that the existing comment text is destroyed and replaced, nor which of issueId/issueKey must accompany commentId, nor what happens on partial updates.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline; there is nothing to pad because nothing substantive was said.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema and an ambiguous schema (issueId and issueKey both optional alongside required commentId) needs the description to clarify replacement semantics and identifier resolution. None of that is present, so an agent must guess.

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 100%, so all four parameters (content, commentId, issueId, issueKey) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

"Updates a comment on an issue" gives a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name update_issue_comment and adds no distinguishing detail versus siblings like update_pull_request_comment or add_issue_comment. An agent knows the general category but gets no scope information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_issue_comment (to create) or get_issue_comments (to read), and no prerequisites or conditions. The only routing signal is the tool name itself, which the agent already had.

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