Atualizar work item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that the operation writes to Azure DevOps and generates notifications to involved parties. It also clarifies that only provided fields are sent and others remain unchanged, that tag replacement is destructive while tagsToAdd/Remove are incremental, and that long text fields must be HTML – all valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core function, then lists usage scenarios, then details parameters with specific constraints, and ends with illustrative example prompts. While long, every sentence adds value – there is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important behavioral notes (write + notification, partial update) appear early.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and complex behaviors, the description covers everything needed: required fields, the at-least-one-other-field rule, state transition constraints, tag handling, HTML formatting for long text, additionalFields usage, and example prompts. The output schema is present, so return format is defined externally; nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that tags replaces the entire list and [] clears it, warns against combining tags with tagsToAdd/tagsToRemove, specifies that comment goes to System.History in HTML, and describes additionalFields as reference-name key-value pairs. These details are not present in the schema alone and materially help the agent build correct calls.

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 opens with a precise statement: it updates fields of an existing Azure DevOps work item and/or registers a comment in the Discussion tab, and returns the updated item plus a list of changed fields. It then lists concrete update targets (state, assignee, title, description, priority, sprint, tags, custom fields) and gives example user requests, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the read/create siblings.

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 gives explicit use cases ('Use para mudar estado, responsável, título...') and provides five realistic user-phrase examples that should trigger this tool. It implies the tool is for existing items by saying 'work item existente', but it does not explicitly direct agents away from create_work_item for new items or mention when not to use it; however, the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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