create_work_item_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a comment and returns the created object, but it doesn't mention any permissions required, side effects, or constraints (e.g., whether comment_html or comment_json must be provided). For a mutation tool, this is a minimal level of disclosure.

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 a clean docstring with a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list and a Returns line. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and every line provides necessary information without fluff. It earns its place efficiently.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 2 required), the description covers the basics but omits important context. Notably, it doesn't explain whether at least one of comment_html or comment_json is required, or if they are mutually exclusive. There is an output schema, so the Returns line is somewhat redundant, but the description still leaves key usage constraints unclear.

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 0%, so the description compensates by providing brief but meaningful descriptions for all 7 parameters. It clarifies that project_id and work_item_id are UUIDs, comment_html is HTML, comment_json is JSON, access can be INTERNAL or EXTERNAL, and external_source/external_id are external identifiers. This adds value beyond the bare type information in the schema, though some descriptions (e.g., external_source) are somewhat tautological.

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 starts with 'Create a comment for a work item.' This clearly states the action (create) and the resource (comment for a work item), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_work_item_comment, delete_work_item_comment, and list_work_item_comments. It is 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used for creating new comments as opposed to updating or retrieving existing ones, nor does it note any prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the generic 'create' action.

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