Update work item comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, or whether the original text is irreversibly overwritten, although 'replace' does convey in-place modification.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds a useful workflow pointer without bloating the description.

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 four-parameter update tool with a fully-described schema and helpful annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what the tool does and how to source the required commentId. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly contrast this tool with add_work_item_comment or mention what the operation returns.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds extra value by telling the agent that comment ids can be obtained via get_work_item_comments, which gives practical meaning to the commentId parameter beyond the schema's simple 'Comment id'.

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 action and resource: 'Replace the text of an existing comment.' The parenthetical about get_work_item_comments reinforces that this operates on existing comments, clearly distinguishing it from add_work_item_comment and add_comment_to_work_items.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisite guidance: use get_work_item_comments to find comment ids. It clearly implies this tool is for existing comments rather than adding new ones, though it does not explicitly name add_work_item_comment as the alternative.

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