update_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it edits text, which implies a mutating operation. It does not mention permissions required, reversibility, error handling, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot anticipate side effects or failure modes.

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, tight sentence that fronts the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand its purpose and how it differs from related tools. It lacks any mention of return value or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward edit operation. The absence of an output schema slightly lowers the score, yet the description is adequately complete for typical use.

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 100%, meaning each parameter (text, card_id, comment_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the calibration baseline, when the schema fully covers parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate for any missing details.

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 verb ('Edit') and a precise resource ('the text of an existing card comment'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_comment, list_comments, and delete_comment by focusing on modification of existing text. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core function.

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 phrase 'existing card comment' immediately signals that this tool is for modifying already-created comments, which differentiates it from add_comment. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct use case. Slight deduction for not explicitly referencing sibling tools or exclusion criteria.

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