update_article_comment

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the update action and return of previous text (rollback). However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or potential errors, leaving some gaps.

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 plus bullet list. Front-loaded with purpose and key feature (rollback). No superfluous text, efficiently structured.

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?

Tool has 4 parameters and an output schema (not shown). Description explains update and rollback but omits details like whether the output includes full comment or only text. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Article ID or database ID', 'New comment text (markdown)'). This adds meaning but lacks format constraints or examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an article comment' and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_comment' (likely for issues) and 'add_article_comment'. The verb 'update' and resource 'article comment' are specific, providing clear purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The rollback feature is mentioned but not framed as a use case. No comparison with add_article_comment or delete_article_comment.

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