Add a comment to an Azure DevOps work item using markdown or HTML format.
Add a comment to a work item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment text (use markdown syntax when format is "markdown", HTML tags when format is "html") | |
| format | No | Comment format: "markdown" or "html" (default: "markdown") | markdown |
| project | Yes | AzDO project name | |
| organization | Yes | AzDO org name | |
| work_item_id | Yes | Work item ID to add comment to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "markdown",
+ "description": "Comment format: \"markdown\" or \"html\" (default: \"markdown\")",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"Comment text (supports markdown)"New value: +"Comment text (use markdown syntax when format is \"markdown\", HTML tags when format is \"html\")"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"AddCommentArgs"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a comment', missing details like permission requirements, side effects, or response format.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, but slightly more information (e.g., response) would be helpful without losing brevity.
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?
Simple tool, but no output schema and minimal description. Missing return value or error handling context, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%; description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies per criteria.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Add' and resource 'comment to a work item', distinguishing it from sibling tool 'azdo_update_comment' which modifies existing comments.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'azdo_update_comment', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.