update_work_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the required parameter structure, the image embedding process (including the OSS URL timeout warning), and the restriction on customFieldValues for controlled fields. However, it does not detail error handling, permissions, or idempotency, which would enhance 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides structured bullet points. Though somewhat lengthy due to detailed warnings and mixed language, every sentence serves a purpose. It is well-organized with clear section breaks.

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's complexity (nested objects, no output schema, 3 parameters), the description covers key usage patterns, cross-references sibling tools (create_workitem_attachment, effort record tools), and highlights pitfalls. It could mention the return value or expected behavior on success/failure, but overall it is adequate.

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 3 parameters with 67% description coverage. The description adds significant value: it clarifies that updateWorkItemFields must contain all updatable fields, explains how to combine formatType and description for images, and warns against using certain customFieldValues. This goes beyond the schema to guide proper usage.

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 'Update a work item,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (work item). Among siblings like create_work_item and get_work_item, it uniquely identifies its action. The additional details about parameter structure and special cases reinforce the purpose.

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 explicit guidelines: how to structure the updateWorkItemFields object, how to embed images using create_workitem_attachment, and a warning about controlled fields (actual/estimated effort) that cannot be modified here but require alternative tools (create_effort_record, etc.). This clearly states when not to use this tool and offers alternatives.

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