Update Comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Replace the body,' which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, permanence), authentication or permission requirements, or any constraints like the comment must exist. It does not describe the return value or any errors, making it opaque for a write operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification—while efficient, it omits critical context that could be included without verbosity, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 4 required parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, mention any prerequisites (e.g., the comment must exist), or address the HTML/plain-text behavior described in the schema. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is far too sparse to guide an agent safely.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema—it does not even reiterate that 'comment' is the new body. Since the schema already documents each field, the description contributes no extra value, but it does not contradict the schema either.

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 a specific verb ('Replace') and a specific resource ('body of an existing work item comment'), which distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment and delete_comment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools (update_project, update_work_item), but since the resource is clearly a comment, it is unambiguous. It does not mention scope (e.g., only for work items), but the resource is explicit.

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 that add_comment is for new comments, delete_comment for removal, or any conditions like 'use this when a comment already exists.' There is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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