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

Discloses that this is a write operation requiring DEVOPS_PAT with Work Items: Write permission, warns confirmation is needed, and clarifies it should be called after analysis. Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Information is front-loaded with WHEN and PRIORITY TRIGGER labels, then the confirmation warning and workflow. Slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose, and the structured labels make it scannable.

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?

Covers when to use, prerequisites, workflow, permissions, and parameter source. No output schema exists and none is needed for a simple write operation. Lacks a note about idempotency or duplicate comments, but the provided context is otherwise sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds valuable semantic context: the commentText should be the ready-to-post block from `ado_analyze_workitem`, and project falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT env var. Slight extra value beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the action: post, add, or save a comment to an ADO Work Item. Distinguishes itself from sibling `ado_post_pr_comment` by targeting Work Items specifically, though it could be clearer about that exact difference.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN trigger, PRIORITY TRIGGER conditions, a recommended workflow with step-by-step sequencing, a warning to always ask for user confirmation, and required permissions. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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