work_update

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

The description adds the atomicity trait, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the optimistic-concurrency behavior implied by the required expected_revision field or what happens on mismatch, which is important for a mutating work-state tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's core behavior and scope.

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?

Despite a highly nested schema and no output schema, the description only covers the top-level purpose. It omits guidance on the update variants, required concurrency fields, failure behavior, and return value, making it insufficient for fully self-sufficient tool invocation.

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 provides no parameter-level meaning. It gestures at the action variants, but it does not explain request, updates, work_id, expected_revision, status, or the location object, so it leaves the schema to carry all semantic weight.

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 a specific resource (work) and three concrete actions: report progress, release work, and hand work to another session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like work_claim, which has a different purpose.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when updating work state, releasing it, or handing it off. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action verbs make the appropriate use case reasonably obvious.

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