Update PingCode Requirement Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'modify status' without detailing side effects, atomicity, authorization requirements, error states, or the PATCH nature (only implied in dryRun). The schema hints at dryRun and expectedCurrentStatusName, but the description does not integrate these.

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 with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core action and key identifiers.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the status transition logic (e.g., stateId vs statusName precedence), error handling, or expected return values. For a complex update tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 78% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions identifier and workItemId as lookup methods but does not clarify the priority between stateId and statusName, or the role of comment and expectedCurrentStatusName beyond schema.

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 modifies the status of a single requirement using a number or work item ID. It is specific about the action (update status) and the target object (requirement), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like pingcode_update_bug_status or pingcode_update_work_item_fields.

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 implies usage for updating requirement status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pingcode_update_work_item_fields for non-status updates). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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