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

The description adds an important behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: author-only edit permission. With annotations already indicating mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and no contradiction, this extra auth context earns a 4. It does not disclose potential side effects or errors, but relative to annotation coverage, the description contributes meaningful context.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. The auth constraint is a crucial addition that does not bloat the description. This is an exemplar of concise writing.

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 a mutation tool with 8 parameters, mandatory idempotency_key, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, this description is far too sparse. It leaves the agent guessing about how `id` and `commentId` relate, what the API returns, and how failures (e.g., non-author) are signaled. The one-line action and auth note do not cover the operational complexity.

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 50%, so the description should help clarify the remaining parameters. It does not. It fails to explain the roles of `id` vs `commentId`, the purpose of `idempotency_key`, or the relevance of `brand_id`. The only parameter it implicitly addresses is `text` ('Updated comment text'), which the schema already describes. Thus the description adds almost no value for parameter understanding.

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 ('Edit a comment's text') and resource (a comment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post_comment, delete_post_comment, and list_post_comments. The resource is specific and the verb 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: to modify the text of an existing comment. It also gives a critical precondition—'Only the author can edit their own comments'—which is actionable guidance for the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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