update_task_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses side effects (server re-parses mentions and overwrites), caveats (mentions necessity), and formatting (plaintext→HTML conversion). It also states error conditions (cannot edit others' comments) and duplicate notification avoidance, providing rich insight beyond basic 'update' semantics.

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 paragraph with a clear note (주의) and bullet-like statements. It is dense but appropriately so, covering all critical caveats without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands on important behavior.

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 tool's complexity (mention re-parsing, mutation, ownership constraints), the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, preconditions, side effects, parameter semantics, and comparisons to a sibling. Output schema exists, so not explaining return values is fine. It is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It explains content's auto-conversion behavior and mentions' insertion mechanism, including how it interacts with existing mentions. comment_id is not explicitly described, but its role is implied by the context and default null for mentions.

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 clearly states the tool modifies the body of a comment (mention), using the specific verb '수정한다' (modify). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on editing, not creating/deleting/listening, and includes a constraint about only modifying self-authored comments.

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?

It provides strong usage context: only self-written comments can be edited, and it warns about the need to pass mentions to preserve existing mention targets. It references add_task_comment for behavioral consistency, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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