update_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it updates a comment, omitting critical behavioral details such as whether the update is idempotent, permission requirements, error handling for non-existent comments, or the return value. This is insufficient 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 concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include important context like required permissions or return behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and 8 parameters, the description does not explain what the tool returns upon success or failure, nor does it provide prerequisites (e.g., write access). It is incomplete for safe invocation, especially for a mutation tool.

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% with all parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not improved. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema.

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 ('updates') and resource ('comment on a pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_pull_request_comment and get_pull_request_comments. However, it does not specify which aspects of the comment it updates (e.g., content only), which could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_pull_request_comment or get_pull_request_comments. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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