ado_work_item_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' and 'JSON Patch' indicate mutation and selective modification, but the description does not reveal permissions needed, effects of 'remove' operations, partial-failure behavior, or whether unknown fields cause errors.

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 focused sentence with no filler. Its key qualifiers—'explicitly selected' and 'using JSON Patch'—earn their place by conveying scope and method, making this appropriately concise.

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 a tool with a nested request schema, JSON Patch semantics, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits usage context, behavioral caveats, and any guidance on constructing valid patch operations, leaving an agent to rely entirely on schema structure and outside knowledge.

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 0%, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain work_item_id, operations, paths, or value types; the schema's $defs carry the meaning instead. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, this is a clear 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 states a specific action ('Update'), a precise resource ('work item fields'), and a distinctive mechanism ('using JSON Patch'). This clearly separates it from siblings like ado_work_item_create, ado_work_item_get, and ado_work_items_query, so an agent can recognize its role without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'explicitly selected work item fields' implies the tool is for targeted field updates rather than full replacements, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state prerequisites such as the work item existing or when to choose this over create or query tools.

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