Update a work item by ID with new data such as status or notes to keep project information current.
Update a work item with new data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The work item ID | |
| data | Yes | The data to update (e.g., {"status": "Completed", "notes": "Task finished"}) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the mutation ('Update a work item') and adds no context about side effects, idempotency, permissions, response behavior, or error cases.
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 a single concise sentence and is easy to scan. The phrase 'with new data' is somewhat redundant since an update inherently involves new data, but it is not misleading or verbose.
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 simple two-parameter update tool, the schema covers the inputs adequately and the purpose is clear. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral explanation, the description leaves the agent without expectations about return values or side effects.
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%, and the schema already documents both parameters including an example for data. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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, 'update', and a clear resource, 'work item'. It is distinguishable from the get_* siblings by the update verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from planview_execute_request.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus getting a work item or executing a generic request. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.