update_comments_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the fact that this is an update, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, then arguments. Every line serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 output schema, annotations, and the pointer to GET/schema cover many details. However, the body object is open-ended and no update-specific fields or partial-update semantics are described, so the agent must discover critical information through additional calls.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that id accepts a slug and that body is an opaque request payload whose fields should be discovered via the matching GET or /schema endpoint. It provides a discovery strategy rather than concrete field definitions.

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 states a clear action and target: 'Update a comment or reply' with the PUT endpoint. It is specific enough to distinguish the operation from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with create/delete comment tools.

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 implies when to use it (to update an existing comment/reply) and gives preparatory guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_comments_by_id_replies or delete_comments_by_id.

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