update_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Update' without any details on mutation semantics (e.g., partial vs full update), authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or cost.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core action. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations), sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context like return value, error cases, or required organization. The agent remains uncertain about usage outcomes.

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 schema already describes 6 of 8 parameters (75% coverage). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage. No additional constraints or usage hints are provided.

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 'Update an existing work item' clearly states the verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_comment' or 'add_work_item_relation' which also modify work items, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the work item must exist), and no mention of required permissions. The agent is left without context for proper selection.

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