update_work_item_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that an Updated WorkItemLink object is returned, but omits side effects, error conditions, auth requirements, and the nuance that url is nullable (per schema). Mutation is implied by 'update' but not elaborated.

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 compact and cleanly structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 simple CRUD update, the description covers all parameters and specifies the return type, referencing an output schema. It lacks usage context and edge-case behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 compensates by listing all four parameters with concise meanings (e.g., 'UUID of the project', 'Updated URL of the link'). However, it doesn't explain that url is optional/nullable or what happens when omitted.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a link') and the resource ('for a work item'), making it distinct from sibling create/delete/retrieve operations. The verb 'update' and resource 'link' are specific, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_work_item_link or delete_work_item_link. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit from the name.

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