update_work_item_comment

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

The description declares idempotency, which matches the idempotentHint annotation. It adds context about scope ('flips only that comment'). Annotations already cover readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description adds moderate value.

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 two sentences plus a brief constraint note. Every sentence adds value with no filler. Key information 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and usage context. It is fully adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond their basic role. It mentions that comment_id should be a root ID, but this is not a direct parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resolve or re-open') on a clear resource ('one work item comment'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Root comments only' and differentiating from document comments via context.

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 guidance: only root comments can be updated, and it tells users to obtain a root comment ID from list_work_item_comments. It implies when not to use (replies) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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