update_entity_comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Edit' is consistent with a mutation, so no contradiction. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether text fully replaces the prior comment, how 'notify'/'notifyAuthor' behave in practice, what happens to attachments omitted from 'attachmentIds', or whether the edit is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and entity scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is concise, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering payload semantics, key questions go unanswered: whether omitted attachmentIds drop existing attachments, whether notifications default to all watchers, and what the tool returns. The description is too thin to call this tool correctly in edge cases.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the description only echoes the entity-type enum values. Baseline of 3 is appropriate: the description neither compensates for the still-undocumented entityId/commentId nor clarifies the semantics of attachmentIds replacement versus append.

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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a comment') and scopes it to project, portfolio or goal entities, which lets an agent separate it from the issue-oriented 'edit_comment' and from 'add_entity_comment'/'delete_entity_comment'. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or the entity-scoped nature of the operation beyond the three types.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the clearly related siblings: 'add_entity_comment' for creating, 'delete_entity_comment' for removal, or 'edit_comment' for issue comments. The agent must infer usage purely from the name, and no prerequisites (required permission, existing comment) are stated.

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