set_work_item_property_value

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing upsert behavior ('creates the value if it does not exist, updates it if it does') and the destructive replacement for multi-value properties. It also details expected value types, but omits permission requirements or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a behavioral note, a bulleted list of value types, an Args list, and a Returns note. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and a nuanced value-type mapping, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return types. It lacks only secondary context like permission requirements or error conditions, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates. The 'Args' section explains each parameter, and the value type mapping by property type is essential because the schema only lists raw JSON types. This provides crucial semantic detail for correctly formatting 'value' for different property types.

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 'Set (create or update) the value of a custom property on a work item,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing the value-setting action (versus get/delete property value) and clarifying it acts as an upsert.

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 implies usage through its upsert explanation and replacement behavior for multi-value properties, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_work_item_property or set_customer_property_values. There is no explicit when-not or alternative naming, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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