Create PingCode Work Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: default dryRun=true only returns a creation plan, and false actually creates. It also warns about statusName causing validation failures. This is transparent but could be improved by noting permissions or irreversible actions when dryRun is false.

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 sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 complexity (11 parameters, many siblings) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter information. It mentions the dry run output ('仅返回创建计划'), which partially describes the return value, but a more explicit output structure would improve completeness.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all 11 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by summarizing the required/optional fields, the default dryRun, and the recommendation for statusName. This helps the agent prioritize the most important parameters.

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 that the tool creates a single bug or requirement ('创建单个缺陷/需求'), specifying the action and resource. It highlights the required title and optional fields, and the default dryRun behavior, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains that by default dryRun=true returns only a plan, guiding users to use false for actual creation. It advises against passing statusName to avoid validation errors. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings like pingcode_update_work_item_fields or pingcode_import_bugs.

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