Add work item comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that write tools and confirm=true are required, signaling a guarded mutation. However, it does not describe side effects, return value, or behavior when the work item does not exist, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every word 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?

For a simple create operation, the description plus a fully documented schema is nearly complete: it covers required params, confirmation, and permission prerequisite. It does not state the return type or error cases, but those are not necessary for selecting and calling the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's only parameter-related addition—Markdown or HTML—mirrors the format enum. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add ... comment to an Azure Boards work item,' and specifies supported formats (Markdown or HTML). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_work_item_comment, delete_work_item_comment, and create_pull_request_comment.

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 action phrase and target resource give clear context for when to use it: when a new comment should be posted to a work item. It also states the confirmation prerequisite ('confirm=true') and write-tool requirement. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives such as update/delete, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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