Update work package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the lockVersion requirement and implies a partial update ('patch'). It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, how errors are reported, or what the response contains (e.g., updated work package object). Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences long: one for purpose, one for critical usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks information on return values, error handling, required permissions, and which fields are optional vs required beyond the schema. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to make informed decisions.

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 only 8% (only assigneeId has a description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions lockVersion in the usage guideline but doesn't explain the purpose or constraints of other parameters. For a tool with 12 parameters, the description should compensate for the sparse schema but fails to do so.

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 'Patch fields on a work package', which is a specific verb ('patch') and resource ('work package'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like op_create_work_package (create) and op_delete_work_package (delete).

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 explicitly mandates passing the current lockVersion and explains the consequence of not doing so (stale-object error). It also implies fetching the work package first using op_get_work_package. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (e.g., use op_create_work_package for new work packages) or when not to use this tool.

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