taiga_update_epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: status is given by name rather than ID, and 'comment' is posted atomically in the same call. It stays silent on partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved), permissions, and failure behavior, which matter for an 8-parameter mutation.

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 short sentences with zero filler, field list front-loaded and the atomic-comment caveat placed last where it is easy to scan.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, and the description does not say what the call returns (updated epic? partial?) or how errors are surfaced. Adequate to make the call, but thin for a mutation with 8 parameters and no structured safety metadata.

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 25% (only assigned_to and comment are documented), so the description has to compensate. It meaningfully adds that status is passed by name, but leaves epic_id, tags, color, subject, and description formats unexplained beyond their types.

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 ("Update epic fields") and enumerates which fields, so it is distinguishable from taiga_update_user_story and taiga_update_issue by resource alone. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource noun does the differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus taiga_create_epic, taiga_delete_epic, or taiga_add_comment for pure commenting. No prerequisites such as project membership or permissions are mentioned.

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