update_work_item

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Returns previous values for rollback' and the 'keep' semantics (0 for duration, empty strings for date/description) clarify partial-update behavior. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 succinct one-line summary followed by a clearly indented Args block. Each line adds semantic value without redundancy, and the structure makes scanning trivial. No word is wasted.

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 present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers all parameter meanings well. The only gaps are the absence of usage comparison to sibling tools and a lack of detail on valid 'instance' values, but the core operation is adequately described for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: issue_id accepts an ID or URL, date specifies YYYY-MM-DD format, and duration/date/description all document the 'keep' interpretation of default values. This is a thorough, meaningful expansion over the bare schema.

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 'Update a work item,' clearly stating the action and resource. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_work_item, delete_work_item, and get_work_items based on the verb alone.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions sibling work-item tools nor states any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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