update_work_item_comment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Update a comment' but does not disclose whether it does a partial or full update, what happens if the comment does not exist, whether permissions are required, or the relationship between comment_html and comment_json. These are significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear action statement, a list of parameters, and a return value. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Args list largely mirrors the schema and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return type, which is adequate but incomplete. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. Given the 8 parameters and absence of annotations, more contextual information is needed to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description provides a one-line explanation for each parameter, which helps compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the explanations are shallow (e.g., 'external_source: External system source name') and do not clarify optionality, mutual exclusivity, or valid formats beyond the schema types.

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 verb and resource: 'Update a comment for a work item.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_work_item_comment, delete_work_item_comment, and retrieve_work_item_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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as using create_work_item_comment for new comments or delete_work_item_comment for removal. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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