Comment Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Update' implies a mutation, but there is no mention of required permissions, partial-update semantics (three params default to null), or whether passing null clears a field versus leaves it unchanged.

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?

A single sentence is technically efficient, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The sentence adds nothing an agent could not derive from the tool name and occupies space that should have carried usage or parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three undocumented optional fields that accept null, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this mutation tool confidently.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description names none of them (body, status, subject, comment_id). An agent has no description-level help for the ambiguous null-default fields, so meaning must be guessed entirely from parameter names.

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 states a clear verb and resource (update + comment), so the purpose is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as comment_create, comment_delete, comment_approve, or comment_unapprove, and does not indicate which aspects of a comment are updatable.

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 alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set (comment_approve, comment_unapprove, comment_delete) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that this is a generic field-level edit rather than a moderation action.

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