update_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Updates a comment on a pull request' without detailing side effects, permissions, or behavior like overwriting content. The mutation nature is implied by the verb but not elaborated, leaving unknowns about idempotency, failure modes, or required context.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it may be too minimal to be genuinely helpful, but for conciseness it is appropriate.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., comment must exist), or error conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the schema and name alone, making it incomplete 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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. However, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as which parameters are required or how they relate to the update operation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Updates') and the target ('a comment on a pull request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_pull_request_comment and update_pull_request. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention distinguishing factors such as requiring an existing comment ID or that it should be used instead of add/delete comment tools, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.