azdo_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a comment, implying a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or comment ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, response format) or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how and when to invoke the tool effectively.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'Comment text (supports markdown)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 action ('Add a comment') and the target resource ('to a work item'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'azdo_update_work_item' by focusing on comment addition rather than general work item modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential comment-related tools (though none exist in the sibling list), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing work item), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'azdo_update_work_item' (which might also handle comments). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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