update_work_package

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

Description complements annotations by disclosing write behavior, lock version mechanism, and notification toggle. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Two sentences, each with clear value. First sentence declares purpose and output. Second sentence explains key behaviors. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Covers core behaviors (partial update, lock version, null clearing, notification) but lacks details on error handling, required fields beyond id, and comprehensive return value description. Adequate for a moderately complex tool.

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% with 14 parameters. Description only addresses general behavior (null clears links) but does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema defines. Insufficient compensation for low 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?

Clearly states verb 'update', resource 'work package', and outcome 'return its browser URL'. Distinguishes from siblings like create_work_package, delete_work_package, and read-only 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?

Provides explicit details on when to use: updating supplied fields, automatic lock version handling, null clearing links, and notification behavior. Lacks direct comparison to alternatives but offers clear context.

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