ado_workitems_update

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

With readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description still adds useful behavioral context by stating it updates existing items and requires the vso.work_write PAT scope. It does not contradict the annotations. It could go further by mentioning side effects like revision creation or invalid field handling, but it is solid.

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 compact, action-oriented, and front-loaded. The common fields list is a bit long, but each sentence contributes useful information about the call, the inputs, or the authentication scope.

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?

It covers how to perform an update and what permission is needed. Missing, though, is any explanation of the response, validation behavior, or side effects like work item revisions. Since there is no output schema, a bit more return-value context would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by naming common field reference names like System.State and System.AssignedTo, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 action ('Update fields'), the resource ('an existing work item'), and the required input pattern (work item ID + field map). It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like create, query, get, link, and unlink by emphasizing it modifies an existing item.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when updating fields on an existing work item. It even lists common fields, which helps the agent construct useful payloads. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings such as create or link.

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