Mark PingCode Bugs Fixed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: default dryRun=true (no real changes unless false), and validation that current state is '新提交'. This is safety-critical and goes beyond a simple mutation statement. It lacks details on idempotency or error handling, but the core transparency is good.

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 sentences, no waste. The key information is front-loaded: purpose, default behavior, safety check. Every word serves a purpose.

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 batch update tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, default behavior, and a critical constraint (state validation). It does not explain error handling or partial failures, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 75%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds context by tying dryRun and expectedCurrentStatusName to the workflow (default dryRun, state check). It does not add new parameter-level details beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool batches update of bug status from '新提交' to '已修复', with a specific verb ('批量更新') and resource ('缺陷'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pingcode_update_bug_status (single bug) and pingcode_bulk_update_work_items (generic) by focusing on a specific workflow: marking bugs fixed after fixing.

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 explicitly says when to use: after fixing bugs, to batch update status. It provides the default dryRun and state validation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives for single updates. Still, the context is clear enough for the agent.

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