tfs_update_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update fields' but does not explain whether fields are merged or replaced, what side effects occur (e.g., validation, history, permissions), or what happens on failure. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 with no redundant words. It is properly front-loaded. However, it could be slightly too terse given the need for more detail.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and nested object parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the effect of updating fields. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 50% (only 'fields' has a description). The tool description adds no information about the 'id' parameter or further clarifies 'fields' beyond the schema. The agent must rely on the schema's example, but the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 fields'), the resource ('existing work item'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tfs_create_work_item (creation) and tfs_get_work_item (retrieval).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like tfs_create_work_item and tfs_add_work_item_comment, explicit context or exclusions are missing, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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