update_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the partial-update semantics and warns that assigned_user_ids replaces the entire assignee set. It does not describe side effects or return values, but the core non-obvious behaviors are 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-structured sentence that leads with the core action, lists specifics, and ends with a critical usage tip. Every phrase adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 having 16 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's capabilities and the partial-update model. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the required project_id and work_item_id indicated in the schema. The missing requirement info is already in the schema, so the description's coverage is 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 must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It maps each parameter to its semantic action (e.g., importance_level_id to 're-prioritize', assigned_user_ids to 'reassign'), covering all 16 parameters implicitly. It also clarifies the replacement behavior for assigned_user_ids.

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 tool performs a 'partial update' on a work item, enumerating specific actions like moving stages, retitling, editing descriptions, and more. It distinguishes itself from siblings (create, delete, design element updates) by focusing on partial updates.

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?

It explicitly states 'Provide only the fields you want to change,' giving clear guidance on how to invoke the tool. It covers implied use cases via the enumeration, but does not explicitly name alternatives for exclusion (e.g., use create_work_item for new items). Given the sibling list, the context is clear, so a 4 is appropriate.

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