taiga_resolve_ref

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates the intended read-only mapping behavior and the required ordering, but says nothing about failure modes (ref not found, ref belonging to a different project) or whether the ref is validated against object_type.

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, front-loaded with what it does and followed by the mandatory usage rule; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return value ('the internal ID'), and the pre-call ordering rule is clear. The only shortfall is the missing per-project scoping rationale for project_id, which matters for a 3-required-parameter tool.

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?

ref and object_type are already described in the schema (the enum enumerates the four valid types). project_id is undocumented in both places, and the description misses the key semantic that # references are scoped per project, which is what makes project_id required rather than redundant.

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 and resource ('Convert a display reference number ... to the internal ID') and even grounds it with a concrete example ('#12 shown in the UI'). No sibling tool does reference-to-ID resolution, so it is unambiguous against the list/get/update family.

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 an explicit precondition with 'ALWAYS use this before commenting on or updating a story/task/issue by its # number', naming the downstream tools (taiga_add_comment, taiga_update_*) and the condition that selects them. The agent knows both when to call it and what it unlocks.

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