update_comment

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the body REPLACES the entire text (matching destructiveHint=true), the authorization model, and the thread-lock constraint. Annotations flag safety profile; the description fills in the operational consequences an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and '1 call', then packs replace-semantics, params, and auth into one dense passage. Slightly redundant with schema wording on the body-replacement rule, but no wasted sentences.

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, it covers auth requirements, destructive replace behavior, and prerequisites adequately. Return-value expectations are left implicit, which is acceptable given the tool's simple edit semantics.

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 67% and the body/body_format descriptions already appear in the schema, so the description largely repeats structured data ('REPLACES the whole text', 'html' example). It adds identification of the undocumented id as 'numeric' and required, but little else beyond the baseline.

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+resource ('Edit a comment') and immediately disambiguates it against the create/delete_comment siblings by describing an in-place edit that REPLACES the whole body. An agent can select it confidently without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear preconditions: author/thread-admin permission, thread must be unlocked, and routes the agent to list_thread_items to read the text before replacing it. No explicit 'use X instead' exclusion, but the context is concrete and actionable.

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