Update PingCode Work Item Fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: default dryRun=true (safe), only PATCHes changed fields, and includes a weak idempotency guard via expectedCurrentStatusName. Missing details on permissions or error handling, but major traits are covered.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and key behavioral traits. Every word is necessary and earned.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the most critical behavioral context (dry-run, patch-only). It does not mention the return value or error cases, but the schema descriptions already provide substantial help.

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 the description need not repeat parameter details. It adds value by explaining the dryRun default and that only changed fields are patched, and notes workItemId priority over identifier. This goes beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool edits work item fields such as title, description, priority, assignee, parent, and custom properties, and specifies it operates by identifier or internal ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that update status or perform bulk operations.

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 by listing editable fields but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_bug_status or bulk_update_work_items. The dry-run and patch-only behavior is noted, but guidance on when to choose this tool is absent.

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