Update Inline Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description needs only add extra behavioral context. It does that by disclosing the optimistic-locking requirement ('version_number must be current version + 1') and explaining how 'resolved' toggles the thread state. This adds meaningful operational insight beyond the annotations, though it omits potential errors or permission prerequisites.

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 brief and efficiently structured: one purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Each line provides necessary information without filler, and the layout makes scanning easy.

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 five parameters and no output schema, and the description successfully covers all parameter semantics plus the critical versioning rule. However, it does not mention the return value, possible error scenarios, or permission requirements, leaving some contextual gaps for an update operation.

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 has zero descriptions for its five properties, placing the full burden on the description. The description defines every parameter with intended semantics: comment_id, body_value, version_number (with the critical current+1 constraint), body_representation (listing accepted values), and resolved (explaining True/False behavior). This far exceeds the raw schema and clearly guides correct parameter usage.

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 opens with 'Update an inline comment (content or resolved state)' — a specific verb ('update'), clear resource ('inline comment'), and scope. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_inline_comment, delete_inline_comment, and get_inline_comment, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is relevant.

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 conveys this tool is for modifying an existing comment's content or resolution state. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous from the summary and the context of sibling tools. The version_number constraint also implies usage requirements, though it does not fully elaborate on when to prefer this over create or delete.

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