update_work

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

Without annotations, the description partially fulfills the burden by noting it is a write operation, uses PATCH for partial updates, and may fail with HTTP 405. But it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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 concise, front-loaded with critical context (LOCAL, write), and efficiently covers purpose, usage, and a caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description explains the operation and potential failure but does not describe the successful response format. It could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example field (ExecType) but does not augment parameter descriptions beyond what the schema provides for 'updates' and 'attributes'.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'work item', and specifies it handles partial payloads via PATCH. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project by focusing on work items.

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 important context: the tool is a local write operation, not available in Beta MCP. It also notes that some instances reject PATCH and that the tool returns a clear error. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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