azuredevops_update_work_item

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it operates via JSON Patch and can touch any field, including state transitions, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether removals are destructive/irreversible, revision/concurrency expectations, or the response shape. Partial behavioral disclosure only.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the highest-value constraint (project required, discover from context) is front-loaded after the core purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits error/failure behavior, revision or concurrency semantics, and permission needs. The fully-documented input schema covers the mechanics, which keeps this at a viable minimum rather than a gap-free definition.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the operations array or path syntax beyond what the schema already documents, and its note about the project parameter duplicates the schema's own text verbatim.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('Azure DevOps work item') and names the mechanism ('JSON Patch operations'), immediately separating it from the create/get/search/list/comment siblings. It also scopes capability ('any field including state transitions'), so an agent knows the blast radius without opening the schema.

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 surfaces one real prerequisite ('Project is required - discover it from project context'), which is the most common selection/call failure mode. However it never states when to reach for this over siblings (e.g., when the item exists vs create_work_item) nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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