wikijs_update_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the confirm parameter behavior but omits important details like whether the update is partial or full replacement, error behavior on missing ID, success response, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and requirements, then a clear explanation of confirm behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers prerequisites and confirm behavior, but with no output schema, it fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated comment object). It is adequate but not complete for a mutation tool without 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the confirm parameter ('confirm is only checked when WIKI_MUTATION_CONFIRM_TOKEN is set'), but this largely echoes the schema description. It does not add meaningful new information for other parameters.

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 'Update an existing comment by ID', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wikijs_create_comment, wikijs_delete_comment, and wikijs_get_comment by specifying the update action on an existing comment.

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 important usage prerequisites: 'Requires WIKI_MUTATIONS_ENABLED=true and comment management permissions'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, lacking exclusions.

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