update_article_comment

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'Returns previous text for rollback,' which tells the agent about the undo capability beyond what annotations convey. It does not go into permissions or side effects, but this extra detail is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavior ('Returns previous text for rollback') before listing parameters. Every sentence earns its place; the Args list is clear and indented. No filler or redundancy.

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 its complexity, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the object, the return value, and clarifies all parameters. The main gap is not explicitly distinguishing between article comments and issue comments, which could confuse agents given sibling tools like update_comment. However, the description does mention 'article comment,' and the output schema exists, so this is a minor omission.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully. Each parameter receives an explanation beyond its name: article_id accepts an ID or database ID, text is in markdown, instance is optional, and comment_id is clearly labeled. This adds significant meaning for correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('update') and resource ('an article comment'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_comment or add_article_comment, so it lacks the explicit differentiation needed for a top score, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus updating an issue comment (update_comment) or adding a new comment (add_article_comment). The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the name.

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