update_work_item_link

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds context that it modifies suspect and revision fields. The behavior of 'None = unchanged' for both parameters is clearly stated, and the existence of a 'dry_run' parameter for preview is noted. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph that efficiently states the tool's purpose, followed by concise instructions and parameter notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (8 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage aspects: identification of the link, required fields, and the one-link constraint. It does not detail the output schema, but that is provided separately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema by explaining how to obtain the 'role' parameter and emphasizing that at least one of 'suspect' or 'revision' must be provided. It also clarifies the 'None = unchanged' semantics and the one-link-per-call constraint.

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 explicitly states 'Set suspect and/or revision on one existing outgoing link', clearly defining the action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_work_item_links' and 'list_work_item_links' by focusing on updating an existing link rather than deleting or listing.

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 clear instructions on how to identify the link via 'list_work_item_links(direction="forward")' and specifies that at least one of 'suspect' or 'revision' is required. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives for when not to use the tool, but the context given is sufficient for proper usage.

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