clickup_update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key risk — the text is REPLACED, not appended — and that Markdown and mentions are supported. But it says nothing about permissions, reversibility of the overwrite, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the effect, then the lookup guidance. No filler and nothing repeated needlessly.

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?

Covers purpose, effect, and the ID-discovery workflow for a 5-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema. The one real gap is partial-update semantics: only comment_id is required, but the description's 'replaces the comment text' framing leaves it ambiguous whether text may be omitted when toggling resolved or assignee.

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 every parameter including comment_id, comment_text, resolved, assignee and workspace_id is already documented in the schema. The description largely restates that (Markdown support, reassign, resolved) and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing comment in place by comment_id') plus the mutable facets (text, resolved, assignee). It is readily distinguishable from clickup_create_comment and clickup_delete_comment, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: 'Use clickup_get_task_comments or clickup_get_threaded_comments to find the comment ID.' That names the upstream tools the agent must call first. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., use create_comment for new comments).

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