Github Update Pr Comment

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: conversation and review/inline comments have separate id spaces, so the kind parameter must match where the id came from. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical id-space caveat is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations, output schema, and simple parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the only subtle parameter relationship. Explicitly naming add/reply siblings as alternatives would improve completion, but nothing critical is missing.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the non-obvious 'kind' parameter by tying it to the id space of the comment. The comment_id parameter is already explained in the schema, and repo_owner/repo_name/body are relatively self-evident.

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 the specific action ('Rewrites a comment already posted') and resource, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that add or reply to comments. The id-space sentence further differentiates it from add/reply 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 phrase 'already posted' clearly implies this tool is for updating existing comments, not creating them. It also gives a rule for when the kind must match the comment source. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like github_add_pr_comments or github_reply_to_review_comment or state when not to use them.

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