update_work_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing work package,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for potential under-specification.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage. More context is needed for a mutation tool with multiple inputs.

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%, with all 7 parameters documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 an existing work package' clearly states the action (update) and resource (work package), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_work_package' or specify what aspects can be updated. It's a basic statement of purpose without specificity about scope or fields.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing work package ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_work_package' for new entries or 'get_work_package' for reading. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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