Edit one of your own comments

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), covering the safety semantics. The description adds the useful ownership restriction, but says nothing about what the edit overwrites, whether the original is recoverable, or auth requirements beyond ownership.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint immediately after. Nothing can be cut without losing meaning.

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?

All three required params are documented and the safety profile is carried by annotations, so an agent can call it correctly. But the description is thin for a mutation tool: no note on response/return, no handling of invalid or non-owned comment ids, and no mention of the idempotent behavior already hinted by annotations.

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%, so the three parameters (text, video_id, comment_id) are already documented in the schema, including the replacement semantics of text. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 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 adds the ownership scope, which is genuinely differentiating. It doesn't name the sibling alternatives (add_comment, delete_comment, list_comments), so it lands just short of a 5.

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 ownership constraint implies when this applies (your own comments only) and when-not (someone else's). However, it never routes to a sibling tool or states prerequisites, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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