update_card_comment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention that 'body' replaces the entire comment text, whether the update is reversible, permission requirements, or error handling for invalid card_id/comment_id. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'Update an existing comment on a card.' It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 annotations and a minimal description, the tool lacks essential operational context: what 'body' means, whether partial updates are allowed, and edge-case behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is still too sparse for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of body, card_id, or comment_id semantics beyond their names. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer that 'body' is the new text and that the IDs identify the target.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing comment' and the scope 'on a card'. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like create_card_comment, delete_card_comment, and list_card_comments by indicating modification of an existing entity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The word 'existing' implies this is not for creating or deleting, but there is no mention of when to choose this over create_card_comment or delete_card_comment, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing comment_id.

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