update_comment

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that editing mutates state. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the author-only restriction, which is an important permission constraint for an agent to respect.

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 redundant filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the essential authorization constraint and required identifiers. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what action is performed, who may perform it, and which identifiers are needed. It could mention the required content parameter more explicitly, but the schema covers that, so the tool is adequately complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is appropriate. The description adds some clarity by associating projectId, itemId, and commentId as required identifiers, though it omits the also-required 'content' parameter. Overall, it does not significantly enhance what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific action ('Edit the text of an existing comment') on a clear resource (comments), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like add_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 context by noting that only the author can edit, and by listing the required identifiers (projectId, itemId, commentId). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool applies versus comment creation/deletion.

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