op_update_work_package

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: automatic lockVersion handling, loud failure on concurrent edits, and notifications-off-by-default. These are non-obvious traits that prevent silent overwrites and surprise emails, going well beyond the structured hints in 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?

Two tight sentences with purpose front-loaded. The second sentence packs two high-value behavioral details with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 17-parameter update tool, the description is surprisingly complete: it covers the operation, concurrency behavior, and notification default. There is no output schema and no mention of the return value, but for an update call this is a minor gap since the schema already documents the inputs and the main risks are addressed.

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 76%, and most parameters already carry good descriptions. The description adds a key semantic fact: lockVersion is fetched automatically, so callers should not supply it. This addresses a hidden parameter concern that the schema alone could not convey. The remaining undocumented parameters (id, dueDate, subject, startDate) are still inferable from their names and types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update a work package.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like op_create_work_package, op_get_work_package, and op_comment_work_package. The concurrency note reinforces that this is the mutation entry point for existing work packages.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'Update' and the sibling set, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over op_create_work_package or op_comment_work_package. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are stated.

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