update_intake_work_item

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the behavioral implications of status values (e.g., converting to active work item, requiring duplicate_to or snoozed_till). It also clarifies that work_item_id must be the issue field from IntakeWorkItem response, not the intake work item ID, a critical nuance.

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 moderately sized but well-structured with a general statement, a list of status values, an args list, and a returns line. It is clear and organized, though slightly lengthy; could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 (7 parameters, conditional logic) and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behaviors: status effects, parameter requirements, and the return type. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and conditional requirements (e.g., snoozed_till needed for status=0, duplicate_to for status=2). It adds value beyond the raw 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 updates an intake work item, including triage status. The status values are detailed, and it differentiates from sibling tools like create_intake_work_item and retrieve_intake_work_item by focusing on update operations.

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?

The description explains the effect of each status, guiding when to use (e.g., converting to active work item, marking duplicate, snoozing). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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