update_work_item

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of previous values for rollback and parameter effects (e.g., '0 = keep', 'empty = keep'). However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on partial updates or errors.

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: a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and return value. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema (indicated) and sibling tools covering work item CRUD, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks error handling and usage guidance. For moderate complexity, it is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. Each parameter is given a brief explanation: 'Issue ID or URL', 'New duration in minutes (0 = keep)', 'New date YYYY-MM-DD (empty = keep)', etc. This adds significant clarity beyond the schema's titles, though some parameters like 'instance' are only noted as optional.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a work item. Returns previous values for rollback.' The verb 'update' and resource 'work item' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_work_item (create) and delete_work_item (delete).

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. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are given. It simply lists parameters without explaining usage scenarios.

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