Pizza Developer

Update work

update_work

Destructive

Edit a Work's planning details. Only supplied fields change. batchId deliberately moves a planned Work. status accepts only planned, to send a started Work back to the queue; a Work starts only through begin_work and finishes only through finish_work. In a workflow run, a change to the title, description, labels, size, or Batch is checked as part of that Batch's plan against the rulesets on the connection the run entered Batch on, until one of its Works is done; a Must rule that does not pass refuses the write. Inside a workflow run, rules are checked by TypeSafe, a separate provider, which receives the record, the text of each Rule, and the project context a Rule refers to.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_work"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id of the Work.
`size`	No	Work size.
`title`	No	New title.
`labels`	No	Labels on the Work.
`status`	No	Only planned, to send a started Work back to the queue.
`batchId`	No	Batch to move a planned Work to.
`description`	No	New description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only supplied fields change, status is constrained to 'planned' for requeueing, and workflow-run rule checks can refuse the write when a Must rule fails. It also discloses that TypeSafe, a separate provider, receives the record, rule text, and project context during workflow-run checks, which is valuable behavioral and data-sharing context not available from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and partial-update rule, then layers lifecycle, workflow-rule, and provider details. It is dense and every sentence carries relevant information, though the TypeSafe explanation is lengthy; it is not padded or repetitive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral context: partial updates, status constraints, lifecycle alternatives, workflow rules, and external provider involvement. It does not describe the response shape or error/refusal return details, which keeps it from being fully complete, but invocation-critical context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining why batchId is used ('deliberately moves a planned Work') and the lifecycle meaning of the single allowed status value. It does not add much for id/title/labels/size/description beyond the schema, but the added constraints for the ambiguous parameters are useful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a Work's planning details,' and immediately narrows scope with 'Only supplied fields change.' It also distinguishes this tool from begin_work and finish_work, so an agent can tell it apart from lifecycle-transition siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when to use status ('to send a started Work back to the queue') and names the alternatives for other transitions: begin_work and finish_work. It also clarifies batchId's intended use for moving a planned Work. It does not give a full general when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement versus all update_* siblings, but the critical alternatives are covered.

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

All Pizza Developer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?