devops_work_item_artifact_link_update

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

The description discloses the operation (add/remove) and notes that artifact_id format depends on link_type, which adds context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens on duplicate/missing links, which are relevant for a write 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose and key operational details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage but lacks detail on error handling, prerequisites, or validation behavior. It is not fully comprehensive but sufficient for a typical use case.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by highlighting the dependency of artifact_id on link_type and directing to the parameter doc, but does not provide new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Add or remove an artifact link') and the resource ('on a work item'), listing specific artifact types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like devops_work_item_link_update, which likely handles work item-to-work item links.

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?

While the description explains the 'op' parameter for add/remove, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., devops_work_item_link_update for work item links). It lacks explicit when-not or context for selection among siblings.

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