postComments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (creates a list) but does not describe side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or that it appends rather than overwrites comments. This is insufficient 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?

A single short sentence that communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it lacks additional context. Could be considered minimally concise.

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 tool has nested object parameters and no output schema, and the description provides no information about return values, success/failure signals, or typical use cases. For a creation tool with complex input, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their structure. The description adds 'The Comment(s) body.' for requestBody, which adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond the schema.

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 tool creates a list of Work Item Comments. The verb 'Creates' and the resource 'Work Item Comments' are specific. Among siblings, there are postDocumentComments and postTestRunComments, so this tool is well-distinguished by the target 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patchComment or getComments. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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