update_work_item_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and return type but does not reveal side effects, partial-update semantics, idempotency, permission requirements, or error behavior. Some conditional parameter context is provided, but key mutation traits are missing.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a well-organized Args list. It contains no filler or redundant content; each line adds necessary information, making the length appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description thoroughly covers parameters and key conditional requirements, but lacks broader context: it does not state whether fields are optional for partial updates, whether changing property_type is restricted, or what the Updated WorkItemProperty object contains beyond its name. For a 15-param mutation tool, it is functional but not 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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all 15 parameters with types, allowed values, and conditional requirements. For example, it specifies the enum for property_type, the required settings structures for TEXT/DATETIME, and when relation_type is required. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 a work item property by ID,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_work_item (which updates work items, not properties) and create/delete/retrieve_work_item_property. There is no ambiguity 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_work_item_property or manage_work_item_type_properties. The only usage hints are parameter-level conditions (e.g., 'required when project_id is provided'), which do not address tool selection.

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