update_work_item_comment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not explain the effects of updating, such as whether the entire comment is replaced or if optional fields like external_id are used for locating the comment. The openWorldHint=true is also left unexplained, and the description simply restates the tool's name.

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, consisting of a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and readable. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substance, making it less useful than a slightly longer, more informative 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of optional fields, the effect of null values, or how the comment is identified. The description lacks the detail needed for reliable invocation, especially without parameter descriptions.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (project_id, work_item_id, comment_id, comment_html, external_id, external_source) or their roles. This leaves the agent without any guidance on how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 specifies the exact verb ('Update') and resource ('a comment on a work item'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_work_item_comment, delete_work_item_comment, and retrieve_work_item_comment. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the comment needing to already exist, nor does it differentiate this from create or delete operations. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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