zentao_link_plan_stories

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether existing links are replaced), permission requirements, or return values. The description is minimal.

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 single concise phrase, no redundancy. However, it lacks structure or front-loading of key information, making it efficient but not optimally informative.

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's simple nature (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits context like whether the plan must exist, whether stories are added or overwritten, and how errors are handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 '禅道产品计划关联需求' indicates linking stories to a plan, but is vague. It does not explicitly state 'link' as an action, and the phrase could be interpreted as 'associate requirements' rather than a specific operation. It partially distinguishes from siblings like unlink and link bugs but not clearly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zentao_unlink_plan_stories' or 'zentao_link_plan_bugs'. The context for choosing this over siblings is missing.

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