update_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether updates are atomic or batched, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 1 parameter (an array of items), this lack of context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects), parameter meanings, or return values. For a tool that updates multiple comments via an array, more context is needed to guide proper invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain the 'items' array structure, the 'id' field (e.g., comment ID), or 'content' field (e.g., updated text). The baseline is 3 because the schema itself defines the parameters clearly (type, required fields), but the description provides zero additional semantic context.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('comments in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_comments' and 'delete_comments' by specifying modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of comments are updated (e.g., content, metadata), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing comments), exclusions (e.g., cannot update deleted comments), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_comments' for new comments or 'delete_comments' for removal. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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