Link PingCode Work Items

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

Given no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the dryRun default behavior and that relationType can be custom. However, it omits side effects, error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the relationship already exists.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the core action. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Does not explain the overall flow (how to identify source/target), the meaning of 'plan' in dryRun, expected response fields, or error cases. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient without output schema or more details.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond what schema already provides (e.g., dryRun default, relationType options). It restates existing parameter descriptions without new insight.

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?

Description clearly states the action: linking two work items with a relationship types such as block, blocked_by, duplicate, etc. It specifies the core function, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like pingcode_unlink_work_items or pingcode_list_work_item_relations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions dryRun default and relationType support, but does not address prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer other linking tools.

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