Update Footer Comment

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

Annotations already indicate mutating, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, notably the version_number must be 'current version + 1' and the body_representation formats. It doesn't mention error conditions or auth, but the added versioning context is meaningful.

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 two sentences plus a concise parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action phrase, and every word contributes to understanding. No fluff or redundant information.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the action, parameter semantics, and versioning constraints. It doesn't mention return values, but given the mutation nature and annotations, this is not a critical gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All four parameters are described in the Args section, providing meaning beyond the schema's raw names. The description explains that version_number must be the next number, and body_representation defaults to 'storage' with wiki and atlas_doc_format options. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing footer comment' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete/get via the word 'existing'. Sibling tools like create_footer_comment, delete_footer_comment, and update_inline_comment make the distinction evident.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this tool when modifying an existing footer comment. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing' qualifier and sibling tool names imply when this should be used over create/delete.

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