ado_work_item_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations cannot carry: a required revision test that prevents overwriting concurrent changes and the instruction to fetch the current rev first. It's still silent on what happens to unmentioned fields and what a stale-revision error looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type (WRITE) followed by the safety constraint, with no filler. The extreme terseness is a virtue here, though the missing detail is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

A destructive write tool with a nested, undocumented target object, 4 required parameters and no output schema deserves far more: which field names are legal, what target sub-fields are mandatory, and the error behavior on a failed revision check are all absent.

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 nothing in the description compensates. It only alludes to 'fields' and 'revision'; the required nested 'target' object (profile, project, repository, repoPath, organization) is completely unexplained, as are valid field-name patterns and workItemId semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'WRITE: Update named work item fields', with a clear WRITE marker that separates it from the read-side siblings (ado_work_item_get, ado_work_items_query). It never names a sibling or states its scope relative to ado_work_item_create, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clause 'read current rev first' gives a real precondition workflow and implicitly routes to ado_work_item_get before calling. But it never states when to choose update versus create/get or what to do if the revision test fails, so usage is only implied.

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