Update work item

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that updates are possible across many fields, and that the revision check prevents stale writescars. It also implies mutation through the word 'update' and mentions 'validateOnly' as a parameter in the schema, but the description does not explain the impact of validateOnly or the confirm requirement for mutation. The absence of details about notifying users, permission needs, or the consequences of partial updates is a gap. However, the description does add context beyond the schema by mentioning the optional revision check.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the key fields, then adds the critical detail about the revision check. No fluff, no repetition of schema information. It is appropriately concise for the complexity it covers.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects) but the absence of an output schema, the description provides essential context for correct usage: what can be updated, the existence of a revision check, and the confirm requirement implied by the schema. While it doesn't explain every parameter, the grouping in the description covers the main ones. The tool's output is likely a standard work item object, which is common knowledge in Azure DevOps; thus, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 46%, which is moderate. The description groups many parameters (state, assignee, tags, sprint, area, custom fields) but does not clarify the semantics of less obvious parameters like validateOnly, suppressNotifications, expectedRevision, or removeFields. It does mention the revision check in prose, adding some value. However, for a 13-parameter tool with roughly half undocumented in the schema, the description should compensate more by explaining the roles of these parameters. It gets a baseline 3 due to moderate coverage, but missing explanation for validateOnly and removeFields is a notable gap.

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 clearly states the tool updates Azure Boards work items and enumerates the fields that can be modified (state, assignee, tags, sprint, area, custom fields). It distinguishes it from create_work_item, get_work_item, and comment-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a specific sibling. It could be more specific about which operations are covered, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 clarifies when to use this tool: when updating an existing work item, and it implies not for other operations like creating or commenting. It mentions an optional revision check for stale writes, which gives a condition for use of expectedRevision. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or suggest alternatives like create_work_item for new items. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer typical usage, but explicit exclusions would elevate the score.

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