Update work item comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that author/permission rules apply and that confirm=true is required, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the comment doesn't exist, whether the replacement is destructive/irreversible, or any rate-limit/error behavior. The confirm=true requirement is a meaningful behavioral guardrail.

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 sentences, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical requirements (permissions, confirm=true) are stated compactly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential guardrails (confirm=true, permissions) but omits details like error cases, idempotency, or what the response contains. It's adequate but not rich.

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 parameters. The description adds the confirm=true requirement context and the Azure DevOps permission context, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the action ('Replace the text of an Azure Boards work item comment') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_work_item_comment and delete_work_item_comment by focusing on replacement of existing comment text.

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 mentions Azure DevOps author and permission rules apply, and explicitly requires write tools and confirm=true. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is a mutation tool requiring confirmation.

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