todoist_update_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing comment by its ID,' which implies a mutation operation but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, scoring a 2 for minimal transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence: 'Update an existing comment by its ID.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is optimally concise and well-structured, earning a 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, this minimal description is insufficient, scoring a 2 for significant gaps in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (commentId and content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, so this scores a 3 for adequate but no extra value.

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 the action ('Update') and target resource ('an existing comment'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_create_comment (create) and todoist_delete_comment (delete), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with todoist_get_comment (read) beyond the verb difference. This earns a 4 for clear purpose with some sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like todoist_create_comment for new comments or todoist_get_comment for viewing. With only a basic statement of function, this scores a 2 for lacking usage context.

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