update_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important patch semantics ('Only provided fields change') and how to clear list fields, which is valuable. However, it omits details about error handling, permissions, side effects, or the exact behavior when passing null versus omitting a field, leaving gaps.

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, using three sentences that each provide distinct value: general purpose, status change mechanism, and clear-field behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of superfluous content, though it could be slightly more organized with sections or bullet points for readability.

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 an output schema and is a straightforward update operation, the description covers the essential patch semantics and special cases (state, clearing lists). However, it lacks context about when to prefer this over sibling tools like set_work_item_status, and it does not address the meaning of many parameters. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 schema has 12 parameters with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to only a few parameters: 'state' (target state's UUID), 'assignees'/'labels' (empty list clears). It does not explain the remaining nine parameters, and it remains ambiguous whether passing null differs from omitting a field. This is insufficient for the parameter count.

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 tool updates any fields of a work item, using the specific verb 'update' and resource 'work item'. It also provides guidance on changing status via the 'state' field, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'set_work_item_status', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 useful how-to instructions, such as passing an empty list to clear assignees/labels and using the state UUID for status changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_work_item_status, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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