never4ga_work_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: writes are suppressed unless `apply` is true, and a no-op field change is rejected in either mode. It still omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and what happens on a partially failing update, which matters 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?

Two tight sentences with the mutation scope front-loaded and the dry-run/validation caveat immediately after; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the dry-run contract and the no-op guard, which are the most important behaviors. It is still thin on session/permission context and on error or partial-update outcomes, leaving gaps an agent might need before calling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of `apply` and the `fields` payload but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change fields on a work item'), which an agent can clearly separate from read siblings like never4ga_work_get/never4ga_work_search and from never4ga_work_create/never4ga_work_comment. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'change' and by the dry-run default ('sends nothing unless `apply` is true'), so an agent can infer this is the mutation path when edit intent exists. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over never4ga_work_create or never4ga_work_comment, nor any prerequisites.

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