patchDocumentComment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'updates'. It fails to mention that the requestBody is nested and primarily updates the 'resolved' attribute, nor does it address error states, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The schema partially compensates but the description adds no 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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly terse and lacks important details, so while efficient, it sacrifices completeness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested requestBody, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the 'type' and 'id' fields in the requestBody, or confirm that only specific attributes (like 'resolved') are modifiable. The tool is not fully contextualized among many similar patch tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions; it repeats the obvious. The agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter details.

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 'Updates the specified Document Comment' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (document comment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getDocumentComment' (read) and 'postDocumentComments' (create), and other patch tools are differentiated by resource type.

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. The description does not indicate prerequisites, when a patch is appropriate, or how it differs from a full update via PUT. The agent must 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.