create_work_item_comments

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: text/html is unsanitized (security risk), not idempotent (retry duplicates), always authored by token's user, and image refs must match existing attachments. Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-readOnly, so the description reinforces and expands on these traits with no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. Subsequent sentences add critical behavioral and usage details in a structured manner without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 of supporting multiple comments, replies, formatting, and image references, the description covers behavioral aspects, usage guidance, and parameter semantics thoroughly. The presence of a separate output schema (not shown but indicated) handles return value documentation, so the description is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for parameters like parent_comment_id (source from list_work_item_comments), title (optional heading), and text_format ('text/html' unsanitized). It does not mention dry_run, but the schema covers it. The added meaning justifies a score of 4.

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 tool creates one or more comments on a work item in one request. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_work_item_comments (reading) and update_work_item_comment (updating). The verb 'create' and resource 'work item comments' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: setting parent_comment_id for replies, optional title, handling unsanitized HTML, and resolving image references via list_work_item_attachments. It warns about non-idempotence and that comments are always authored by the token's user. No when-not-to-use is needed because the tool's purpose is clear.

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