bitrix24_task_comment_update

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

Discloses that `task.commentitem.update` direct REST returns ACTION_NOT_ALLOWED for typical webhook scopes, so the tool internally calls `im.message.update`. Also notes that comment ID equals IM message ID and only author can edit. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and delivers well.

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 paragraph of 4 sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, how to get comment ID, when to use, author constraint, and technical note. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

With no output schema and missing annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and behavioral nuance. It lacks explicit return value information, but given the tool's simplicity (update operation), it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema: for `commentId` it specifies 'returned by bitrix24_task_comment_add (same as IM message ID)', and for `text` it mentions 'BBCode — same conventions as add'. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3, but added context earns a 4.

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 'Edit the text of an existing Bitrix24 task comment', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool `bitrix24_task_comment_add` by noting that comment ID equals IM message ID and that this tool is for corrections. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of posting a follow-up «UPD:» comment when you need to correct an earlier message' and states 'Only the comment's author can edit'. Provides clear context for appropriate use, though does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like adding a new comment.

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