update_comment

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

The description only says 'edit', which implies mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). It adds no extra behavioral details beyond annotations, such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no superfluous words and is efficient for an AI agent to process.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks any mention of return values or side effects, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the outcome of the operation.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description reiterates 'body' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For a simple tool with well-documented parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Edit the body of an existing comment' clearly states the action (edit), the resource (comment), and the specific aspect (body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_comment or pin_comment, which modify different properties or perform different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_comment or add_comment_reaction. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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