jira_comment_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that body replaces text, visibility updates restriction, JIRA enforces stricter permissions on edit, and error messages are surfaced verbatim. This is good behavioral coverage, though it could mention idempotency or side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient and covers key points without wordiness. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise.

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 output schema, the description mentions 'Returns the updated comment metadata as YAML', which is helpful. It covers the main action, parameter usage, and key behavioral notes. It is fairly complete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: 'body is JFM markdown (see resource omni-dev://specs/jfm)', the visibility parameter structure with example, and that it updates restriction. This adds meaningful semantics beyond schema.

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 starts with 'Edit an existing JIRA comment', which is a specific verb+resource combo. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_comment (add) and jira_delete by focusing on editing. The description also specifies the effect on body and visibility.

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 clearly states it's for editing existing comments, implying it should not be used for adding new comments. It mentions JIRA permission differences ('often only the original author can edit'), which helps set context. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use scenario.

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