taiga_create_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions, default field values, whether project_id must reference an existing project, or what the created epic returns. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage would need the description to supply creation semantics, prerequisites, and side effects. It supplies none of these.

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?

Six parameters with only 17% schema description coverage (only 'color' is documented). The description adds no meaning for project_id, subject, description, tags, or assigned_to, so the agent must guess formats and semantics for most inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('epic') and explains its role: grouping related user stories under a high-level goal. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like taiga_create_user_story or taiga_bulk_create_stories, but the resource is distinct enough to be unambiguous.

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 phrase 'to group related user stories' implies when an epic is appropriate rather than a story, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any mention of alternatives such as taiga_link_story_to_epic or taiga_update_epic.

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