patchComment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Updates' without specifying side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or limitations such as which fields can be modified. The schema suggests only the 'resolved' boolean attribute is changeable, but this is not communicated in the description.

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 concise (one sentence) and free of unnecessary words. It could benefit from structuring key information, but for its brevity it earns a 4.

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 complexity (4 required parameters, nested requestBody, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the updatable fields, the structure of requestBody, or any constraints. The tool requires more context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 'Updates' and the resource 'Work Item Comment'. It distinguishes from siblings like getComment (read) and postComments (create), though it does not differentiate from other patch tools like patchDocumentComment. However, the resource specificity is sufficient for a 4.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as postComments for creating a comment or delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which updating a comment is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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