update_work_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing key traits such as destructive potential, permission requirements, concurrency behavior, or whether updates are partial or full. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and target. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by indicating that the update is partial (only provided fields are modified).

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that 'id' is required and updates are optional, nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the fields—it repeats schema descriptions without further context on allowed values, formatting, or relationships between parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Update' and the target 'work item', listing three specific fields (state, assignment, title) which correspond to the schema parameters. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_work_item' and 'get_work_item', though it does not explicitly clarify that this is a partial update 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?

The description implies use for modifying existing work items but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It lacks any when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites. The sibling context shows no other update tool, so the guidance is implicitly clear but not explicitly stated.

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