manage_customer_work_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of link/unlink, the scoping behavior of customer_request_id, and a critical edge case (omitting it on unlink drops all links), plus the return value. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the provided details are substantial for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant information 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?

The tool is simple but the description covers purpose, parameters, scoping, edge case, and return value, making it largely complete. It does not address prerequisites like permissions or potential failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the missing details are minor.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does exactly that: customer_id is typed as UUID, action is explained with its enum values, work_item_ids is described as a list, and customer_request_id gets a detailed explanation of its scoping semantics. This adds far more meaning than the bare 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 opens with 'Link or unlink work items on a customer,' a specific verb and resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read tool by explicitly directing users to list_customer_work_items for reading, which eliminates ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context: it tells users to use list_customer_work_items for reading and when to use 'link' vs 'unlink' via the action parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other operations, but the reading alternative is sufficient for distinguishing core use cases.

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