update_comment

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries additional weight. It usefully discloses the author-only permission constraint and that an existing comment's text is edited. However, it does not explain overwrite behavior, failure conditions, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission constraint is placed in the second sentence where it is easy to absorb.

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 simple update operation, the description covers the basic action, a key precondition, and the required identifiers. Still, parameter roles are not fully explained and there is no mention of return value or error behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 25%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It merely lists 'projectId, itemId and the commentId' without saying what each refers to or how they identify the target comment. Only 'content' is described, and that appears in the schema rather than the description.

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 resource: 'Edit the text of an existing comment.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like add_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments. It also adds a meaningful scope condition: only the author can edit.

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 description gives clear context: the tool is for editing an existing comment, and it explicitly states the precondition that only the author can edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is unambiguous given the sibling CRUD tools.

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