add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses markdown support and a 5000-character limit, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key constraints without any fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 add-operation tool, the description covers the core purpose and important constraints. It lacks explicit usage guidance and return value info, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need for describing return values.

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 schema has zero descriptions, but the description partially compensates by specifying that the comment supports markdown and has a max length, which applies to the 'text' parameter. The roles of project_id and work_item_id are implied via 'work item' but not explicitly defined.

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 'Add' with a clear resource 'comment to a work item', and includes useful constraints (markdown supported, max 5000 chars). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_design_element_comment, which targets a different resource.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for work item comments, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as add_design_element_comment.

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