update_work_item_comment

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. Description adds that resolving a root flips only that comment (no cascade) and warns that replying to a reply errors. This context goes beyond annotations without 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states action, second provides critical constraint and data source, third mentions idempotency. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers the key constraint (root only) and mentions idempotency. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Could briefly mention dry_run parameter, but schema covers it. Overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying that comment_id is a short ID from list_work_item_comments, clarifying the parameter's origin. Also reiterates that resolved is boolean, reinforcing schema meaning.

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 the tool resolves or re-opens one work item comment. Specifies that it only operates on root comments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_work_item_comments' (create) and 'list_work_item_comments' (list). The verb-resource pair is precise.

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?

Explicitly states root comments only and that replies will 400, guiding when not to use. Recommends picking a root id from list_work_item_comments, providing context. Does not explicitly mention alternatives for replies, but the constraint is clear enough.

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