update_work_item_link

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation. Description adds behavioral details: 'One link per call' and 'A role typo 404s,' which are beyond annotations. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with main purpose. Each sentence is informative and 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?

Given 8 parameters and existing output schema, description covers core action, constraints, and identification method. Does not explain return values, but output schema exists to provide that. Adequately complete.

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%, but description adds meaning: explains that 'None = unchanged' for suspect/revision, and that at least one is required. Also clarifies role identification via list_work_item_links. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Set suspect and/or revision on one existing outgoing link,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_work_item_links (creates new links) and delete_work_item_links (deletes links).

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?

Provides guidance on identifying the link via list_work_item_links, states constraints (at least one of suspect/revision required, one link per call, role typo leads to 404). However, does not explicitly compare to sibling tools for when to use this tool vs creating or deleting links.

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