work_update

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

The description adds 'atomically,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: updates are applied all-or-nothing. However, it does not explain the optimistic concurrency mechanism suggested by expected_revision, what happens on a revision mismatch, or the side effects of releasing work, so behavioral transparency is only partially covered.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no filler, and the primary behavior is front-loaded. However, for a tool with a complex nested schema, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of omitted guidance that the agent would need.

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?

This tool has a rich nested request schema, no output schema, and only a one-line description. Missing context includes the meaning of expected_revision/expected_task_revision, action-specific required fields, how location is used, and what the response indicates about success or failure.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the request structure and key fields. It maps 'progress, release, or hand off' to the action options, but leaves critical parameters like expected_revision, location, integration_commit, and handoff_to semantically unexplained.

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 names the exact verb-resource pair and enumerates three concrete operations: reporting progress, releasing work, and handing work to another session. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like work_claim and work_history, which read or claim work rather than mutate it.

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 this tool should be used when a session needs to atomically update the state of work, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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