update_work_item_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('更新'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid state names), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). No wasted words, though it's brief given the lack of behavioral context.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover key aspects like authentication needs (implied by 'login' sibling), error responses, or state transition rules, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('work_item_id' and 'state_name') with examples. The description adds minimal value by mentioning '通过状态名称指定目标状态' (specify target state via state name), which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('更新' meaning 'update') and the resource ('工作项状态' meaning 'work item state'), specifying it applies to defects/requirements/tasks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item' (read) and 'search_work_items' (search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential state-related tools (none exist in 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'login'), constraints (e.g., valid state transitions), or compare to siblings like 'get_work_item' for checking current state. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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