update_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the basic action but omits details about side effects (e.g., notifications, validation), required permissions, atomicity, or whether the operation is destructive. The update nature is implicit but lacks depth.

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 concise with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by parameter documentation. Examples are included but do not add excessive length. Minor improvement could be to front-load key details more aggressively.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics but lacks information about return values, error handling, and preconditions (e.g., work item existence, authentication). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing examples. It clarifies the fields dict format and the required structure of add_links, adding significant value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it updates an existing work item's fields and/or adds relation links. The verb 'update' and resource 'work item' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_work_item, delete_work_item, and get_work_item.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where using update_pull_request or other tools would be more appropriate, nor does it list prerequisites or restrictions.

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