update_work_item_link

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation with no destructiveness. The description adds key behavioral details: tri-state behavior for suspect/revision (value updates, None leaves unchanged), requirement for at least one, single-link constraint, and error on typo (404). These go beyond 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 extremely concise, roughly 100 words across four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently packs essential usage details without 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?

For an update tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core operation well: partial update behavior, identification method, and constraint. It does not discuss concurrency or error handling beyond the 404, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tri-state semantics (suspect/revision) and the implicit rule that at least one must be non-None, which is not declared in the schema's required list. It also clarifies how to identify the link via role+target.

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 'Update suspect / revision on one existing outgoing work item link,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and list by focusing on modification of an existing link.

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 advises identifying the link via list_work_item_links and notes one link per call with no bulk PATCH. While it does not explicitly contrast with create or delete tools, the practical guidance and context are sufficient for effective use.

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