update_work_item_comment

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

Annotations already indicate this tool modifies data (readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication needs or side effects, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 concise, using a single paragraph with a clear list of arguments. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy with schema type info does not significantly detract.

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 description explains all parameters and notes the return type, but lacks details on update behavior (e.g., partial vs full replacement), constraints, or validation rules. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description remains adequate with gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'UUID of the project', 'Comment content in HTML format', 'Access level for the comment (INTERNAL or EXTERNAL)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Update a comment for a work item', specifying the verb 'update' and the resource 'work item comment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, retrieve, list, and delete.

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, no prerequisites, and no scenarios where it should not be used.

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