Add work item comment

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: plain text is converted to HTML, HTML is accepted as-is, and the new comment id is returned. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema and the annotations only state read-only/idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: the operation, the text handling behavior, and the return value.

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 simple create-with-comment tool, the description is nearly complete: all parameters are documented in the schema, the return value is specified, and the conversion behavior is disclosed. The only gap is not addressing the closely named sibling 'add_comment_to_work_items', but the singular phrasing mitigates this.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the 'text' parameter is processed (plain text converted to HTML, HTML accepted as-is), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'plain text or HTML' note.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('discussion comment to a work item'). It distinguishes from read/update siblings by the action, and from 'add_comment_to_work_items' by singular vs. plural scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 tells what the tool does but not when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'add_comment_to_work_items' or any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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