Update Work Item

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: defaults to dry_run=true for safety and auto-stringification of arrays/objects for CLI compatibility. These are non-obvious behaviors not fully captured by annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Three focused sentences, each delivering value: purpose, key prerequisite guidance, and safety behavior. No redundant words or filler, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisite metadata lookup, and default safety behavior. It does not mention return values or potential impacts beyond 'update', but annotations plus the dry_run hint mitigate the need. Overall, it is adequately complete for safe selection and 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 100%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters, including the field_value auto-stringification note and dry_run semantics. The description does not add material new parameter information beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update work item fields or role operations.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workitem_get (read), workitem_create (create), and workitem_query (search), while also specifying the two main operations it supports.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use workitem_meta_fields or role metadata first when field keys or role keys are unknown.' This tells the agent to first resolve metadata before calling this tool, which is valuable usage context. It also mentions the dry_run default for safety, implying a safe preview approach.

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