MCP Server for Azure DevOps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing fields not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core operation. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide context about the update operation beyond the bare minimum. The agent would need to infer much from the parameter names alone.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Update an existing work item' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (work item), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_work_item' beyond the obvious create/update difference, nor does it mention the specific fields or operations available.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'create_work_item' is clearly for creation, there's no mention of when to use update_work_item versus other potential modification tools or whether there are prerequisites like authentication or permissions needed.

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