update_state

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields change'), which clarifies that unspecified fields remain unchanged. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a valuable behavioral detail. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema that covers return values, the description lacks essential context for an update operation with six parameters. It does not explain feature-specific nuances (e.g., what 'group' means, whether null clears a field), nor does it provide usage guidance, prerequisites, or edge-case behavior. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool across diverse scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not describe any of the six parameters (name, color, group, state_id, project_id, description), offering only a generic statement about partial updates. The agent receives no additional semantic value beyond the parameter names and types in the schema.

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 'Update a state' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (state), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_state, find_state, and list_states by using 'update' as the action.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_state or set_work_item_status. It only implies usage through the verb 'update', which is minimal and leaves the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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