Github Update Pr Comment

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

Annotations already mark the call as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it warns about separate id spaces for conversation versus review/inline comments and points to a workflow skill. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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: purpose, critical caveat, workflow reference. Nothing is wasted, and the most important fact (rewrites an existing comment) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 5-param update operation with an output schema and useful annotations, the description gives the key disambiguation plus a workflow escape hatch. The only minor gap is not explicitly mapping the 'inline' enum value to 'review comments', but github_get_skill('pr-review') likely covers that.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must carry extra weight. It does for the least obvious parameter, kind, by explaining that it must match where the comment id came from; comment_id itself is already documented in the schema. The remaining params (repo_owner, repo_name, body) are self-evident from names and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Rewrites a comment already posted' – unambiguously an update operation on an existing comment, not a create like github_add_pr_comments or github_add_inline_pr_comment. The title and description align, so an agent can tell the tool's purpose immediately.

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 phrase 'already posted' defines the condition under which this tool applies, which distinguishes it from add-comment siblings. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use them; the workflow pointer to github_get_skill('pr-review') partially fills this gap.

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