notion_update_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: comments created by others are not editable and return a 404. It also specifies that the text parameter supports native API markdown, which is essential for correct formatting. This goes beyond typical descriptions and sufficiently informs the agent of limitations.

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 extremely compact, delivering purpose, a critical caveat, and parameter details in just three sentences. Each element earns its place without redundancy, and the structured parameter explanations are easy to parse.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, limitation, parameter sources, and text formatting expectations. Since an output schema exists, there is no need to describe return values, making the description contextually complete for selecting and invoking this 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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the primary source of parameter meaning. It explains comment_id is obtained from specific sibling tools and text is the replacement text with markdown support. This gives the agent the necessary semantic understanding to populate both parameters correctly.

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 edits a comment with the specific action verb 'Edit' and resource 'comment'. It also includes a crucial constraint ('previously created by this integration') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_add_comment, notion_get_comments, and notion_delete_comment.

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 provides clear usage context: the tool is for editing comments created by this integration, with a warning that others will cause a 404. It also tells the user where to find the comment_id (from notion_get_comments or notion_add_comment). However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for updating comments, so it stops short of full prescriptive guidance.

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