Add Comment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: defaulting to dry_run=true for safety, which is not apparent from the schema or annotations. It also clarifies the prerequisite for file_token use. This adds meaningful transparency for the agent.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by two short sentences that add essential usage details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (dry_run, file_token condition). The schema handles project_key guidance, and annotations cover destructiveness. It is complete enough for the agent to invoke the tool safely, with only minor gaps like explicit return-value expectations.

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?

While the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches understanding of two key params: file_token (when to use it) and dry_run (default behavior and purpose). This goes beyond the schema definitions and helps the agent use the params correctly.

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 states the specific action with a clear verb+resource: 'Add a comment to a work item.' This directly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like comment_list and workitem_update. No ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Provides clear usage context with instructions for file_token ('only when an attachment was uploaded separately') and the dry_run safety default. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like comment_list, though the name and description make this fairly obvious.

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