linear_updateComment

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

Annotations already claim idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the bare mutation statement — nothing about what fields get replaced, whether empty bodies clear content, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool the description should carry more weight.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is minimal but not padded; the brevity is genuine conciseness rather than under-specification, though it could carry more useful content in the same space.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and a non-trivial mutation behavior, yet the description delivers only a bare purpose statement. The output schema covers return values, but the description omits usage context, side effects, and what triggers the various optional fields. A richer description is warranted for a tool this parameterized.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters individually documented (body, quotedText, subscriberIds, resolvingUserId, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline-3 expectation for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('comment'), and the 'existing' qualifier that distinguishes it from create/delete siblings. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous and the name itself disambiguates from linear_createComment and linear_deleteComment.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites stated. With siblings like linear_updateIssue and linear_createComment nearby, an agent gets no help deciding when updating a comment is appropriate.

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