update_work_item_link

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the act of updating, such as partial update semantics, identifier requirements, or consequences. It does not contradict annotations, but provides no extra transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. However, for a tool with 7 parameters, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication, making it minimally acceptable.

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 description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not explain what fields can be updated, the meaning of link_id, the relationships among identifiers, or what the openWorldHint implies. No output schema exists, so the description must carry more weight but does not.

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 0%, and the description contains no parameter explanations. With 7 parameters including composite identifiers (project_id, work_item_id, link_id) and optional fields (url, title, external_id, external_source), the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text.

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 link on a work item' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_work_item, create_work_item_link, and delete_work_item_link. It identifies the exact operation (update) and target (link on a work item).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when an update is appropriate, or contrast with create/retrieve/delete link tools. This is a complete absence of usage context.

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