azdo_update_work_item

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. 'Update work item' provides no information about whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 23 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.

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 complexity (23 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does beyond the basic verb, no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and no explanation of what constitutes a successful update. For a tool of this complexity, the description fails to provide the necessary context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 23 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 work item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what aspects of a work item can be updated or provide any meaningful context about the operation. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'azdo_create_work_item' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions, when to use update versus create, or how it differs from other work item manipulation tools like 'azdo_link_work_items' or 'azdo_add_comment'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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