Unlink PingCode Work Items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the dryRun default (safe by default) but does not describe what happens upon actual deletion (e.g., irreversibility, permissions needed, side effects). The description is insufficient for a destruction action.

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 very short (two sentences), concise, and front-loads the main action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for key behaviors.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, how to use other parameters like projectId or workItemId, or the implications of dryRun=false. The context is incomplete for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only summarizing that relationId is from a sibling tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides meaning.

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 specifies the action 'delete' and the resource 'relationship of a work item', which is clear. It also notes that relationId comes from a sibling tool, aiding understanding. However, it could be more explicit about the type of relationship.

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 mentions that relationId comes from pingcode_list_work_item_relations, implying a prerequisite. It also notes the default dryRun=true. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'link_work_items' or 'update_work_item_fields'.

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