update_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the operation creates a revision (implying history is preserved rather than destructive in-place mutation) and that source-hash binding is optional, but it says nothing about conflict behavior for expected_revision, permission requirements, or what happens to required fields omitted. That is a large gap for a five-required-parameter mutation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. But brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — for a six-parameter mutating tool the one line is too sparse to be proportionate, though that is partly captured under contextual completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and five required parameters, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to fill the required fields or predict conflict handling. It is not remotely adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% across 6 parameters. The description explains only one of them, the optional source_hash, and even that only restates its binding target. work_item_id, expected_revision (presumably an optimistic-concurrency token), spec, status, and role are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 does convey the underlying semantics — an update is implemented as a new revision — which is genuinely informative. However, the verb 'Create a new work revision' sits awkwardly against the tool name update_work_item and reads confusingly close to the sibling create_work_item, with no explicit statement of what distinguishes the two. An agent could plausibly route to the wrong tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_work_item or handoff_work. The only hint resembling guidance is that source_hash is optional, which is about a parameter rather than selection between tools.

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