update_work_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that omitted fields are left unchanged, which is critical for update semantics. It does not go deeper into authorization or error behavior, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the most important behavioral rule and ID-resolving hints. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 16 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries significant responsibility. It covers update semantics and ID lookups, but does not clarify formats or allowed values for fields like priority, dates, sort_order, or estimate_point. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent attempting correct invocation.

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 has 16 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description helps for three specific parameters (state_id, assignees, labels) by pointing to lookup tools and indicating UUIDs. However, many other parameters (priority, dates, parent_id, external_id, etc.) are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 begins with 'Update an existing work item,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from create_work_item, retrieve_work_item, and delete_work_item among the sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states the partial-update behavior ('Only include fields you want to change — omitted fields are left unchanged') and tells the agent which sibling tools to use for resolving IDs (list_states, get_workspace_members, list_labels). It does not exclude alternative tools, but the update semantics and resource-lookup guidance are clear.

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