wit_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation ('Escrita: write + confirm') and that it falls back to System.History. But it omits side effects, permission needs, idempotency, and failure behavior beyond the fallback.

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 extremely compact: one action sentence plus a short confirmation flag. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, the API fallback, and the confirmation requirement. Still, an agent is left without a description of the response, return value, or exact failure semantics, so it is only minimally complete.

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 only 25%, but the prose adds meaning by clarifying that 'confirm' gates the write operation. The 'id' and 'text' parameters are self-explanatory from their names, yet the description adds no constraints such as text length or formatting. The project parameter's default and allowlist requirement are already in the 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Publica comentário na discussão do work item' (publishes a comment in the work item discussion). It also names the underlying API and fallback, which helps distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like wit_comments and from pr_comment.

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 intended context is clear: use this to post work item comments rather than PR comments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare itself with alternatives such as wit_update or pr_comment.

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