add_work_item_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that comments are permanent (cannot be edited/deleted), part of work item history, and attributed to the authenticated user. It lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond the token mention.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, important notes, args, returns). It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the usage list could be slightly more concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, and return format. It could improve by mentioning error cases or authentication scope, but it's largely complete for the context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: 'id' as work item ID, 'text' as comment text with markdown support, and 'project' as optional with fallback behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('Adds a new comment') and resource ('to a work item'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_work_item_comments' (read) and 'update_work_item' (modify fields). It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.

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 explicitly lists four use cases (feedback, documentation, adding context, communication) and contrasts with 'without changing the work item's fields', distinguishing it from 'update_work_item'. It provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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