update_work_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does this by explaining that status transitions are validated automatically, using a concrete example of an invalid jump, and stating that an error will be returned with available statuses. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent critical expectations for error handling. It doesn't cover all possible side effects, but the key behavior is well disclosed.

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 three sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the validation behavior with a specific example, and the third points to a sibling tool for valid transitions. It is front-loaded, every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 an update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, the critical validation rule, error behavior, and a reference to a relevant sibling tool. It doesn't mention return values, but that is often implicit for updates, and the lock_version requirement is already in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could potentially mention optimistic locking implications.

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 input schema already provides descriptive comments for all five parameters, covering 100% of them. The description adds a general note about status validation but does not materially expand on the schema's per-parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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 opens with 'Update an existing work package,' which clearly specifies the verb (update) and resource (work package) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_work_package, get_work_package, and list_work_packages. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (updating existing work packages) and explicitly instructs using get_available_statuses to see valid transitions, which is a direct reference to an alternative for a subtask. It doesn't explicitly exclude create or list operations, but the purpose statement already differentiates. The guidance is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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