taiga_create_user_story

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: it does not mention permissions, duplicate-subject behavior, side effects such as sprint assignment moving the story, or what the call returns. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint (epic_id is an internal numeric ID, not the UI ref #), which lifts it above a bare minimum.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the field list leading and the high-risk epic_id warning flagged with "IMPORTANT" so it is not skimmed past. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should state what is returned (e.g., the created story with its ID) and note any auth or project-membership requirement; it does neither. Field coverage is good, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero structured support, the return/behavior surface is left blank.

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 only 14%, but the description compensates well: it maps subject, description (clarified as acceptance criteria), tags, sprint, assignee, and optional epic, and explains the non-obvious epic_id format. The required project_id is never explained, and sprint_id vs. project_id semantics remain undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a user story") and enumerates the fields it accepts, so the agent immediately knows what this tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling taiga_bulk_create_stories, which is a plausible confusion point for an agent creating multiple items.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow for the tricky case — call taiga_list_epics or taiga_resolve_ref first to obtain the internal epic ID. It offers no exclusions or alternatives for related paths (bulk creation, or creating a task/issue instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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