Add the same comment to multiple work items

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses critical behavior: there is no batch endpoint, requests are fanned out with bounded concurrency, and results are reported per-item. This informs the agent of partial-failure semantics and non-atomicity, which is genuinely valuable 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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds the essential behavioral caveat (fan-out, bounded concurrency, per-item results). Every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing per-item result format (comment ids/errors). Combined with schema-covered parameters and annotations, the definition is nearly complete; the only minor gap is an explicit pointer to the single-item sibling for one-off comments.

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%, so the schema itself documents all three parameters. The description only loosely maps 'one comment text' to the text parameter and 'many work items' to ids, adding no detail beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'Add one comment text to many work items.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling add_work_item_comment (single item) by emphasizing 'many'/'multiple' work items, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (adding the same comment text across multiple work items) and signals batch intent. However, it never explicitly names the single-item alternative (add_work_item_comment) or states when-not-to-use, leaving the exclusion to inference.

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