edit_comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not state whether the edit replaces all text or merges, whether authorization is required, whether the change is reversible, or what happens on conflict. For a mutation tool with minimal annotation detail, more disclosure is warranted.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the purpose stated up front. It is appropriately sized but does not use the brevity budget to add any clarifying detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: permission requirements, whether the edit overwrites or appends, and how it relates to sibling comment tools. Given the 3-parameter schema and annotations that only cover safety hints, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters (issueId, commentId, text) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States the verb (edit) and resource (comment text) clearly, so an agent knows this mutates an existing comment. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like update_entity_comment or delete_comment, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as update_entity_comment or delete_entity_comment. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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