patchWorkItem

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool performs a partial update (PATCH semantics), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The agent is left with no insight beyond the name.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It does not add value beyond the name, making it under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and complex input.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters (including a deeply nested requestBody), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the update behavior, the structure of the request body, or the expected results.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Updates the specified Work Item.' is a minimal verb+resource statement that essentially restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from many other patch tools (e.g., patchAllWorkItems, patchWorkItems), nor does it specify what aspects of a work item can be updated.

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 such as patchWorkItems (for bulk updates) or patchWorkItemAttachment (for attachments). No context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions is given.

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