Update comment

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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete error semantics (403 not_comment_author, 404 comment_not_found with id-malformation cases, 403 evidence_frozen with the clarification that it's a closed record, not a permissions issue), a side-effect disclosure (activity feed keeps the original excerpt), and the exact return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Seven sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, authorization errors, frozen-record edge case, parameter provenance, activity-feed side effect, alternative tool, and return shape. There is no redundancy with schema content, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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, the description fully compensates: it covers authorization rules, three distinct error codes with semantics, a non-obvious edge case (evidence marked on decided cases), the return object shape, and behavioral side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented (length limits, replacement semantics, UUID format, source field). The description adds one genuinely useful clarification — 'caseId isn't needed' — which prevents an agent from hallucinating or requiring an extra parameter. This exceeds the high-coverage baseline of 3 but is not a full compensation requirement since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with 'Change the text of your own case comment' — a specific verb, resource, and scope all in one sentence. The author-only qualifier and the explicit contrast with tribeunal_delete_comment clearly differentiate it from sibling comment tools (post, delete, list).

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?

Explicitly routes to an alternative ('Use tribeunal_delete_comment to remove it instead') and specifies the parameter source ('commentId comes from tribeunal_list_comments'). The author-only constraint and the evidence_frozen condition define clear applicability boundaries for when this tool will succeed or fail.

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