taiga_update_issue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value: 'comment' is posted atomically with the update, and status 'Closed' resolves the issue. But it never explains whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (critical for a partial-update tool), what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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, both front-loaded with the actionable content: fields first, the atomic-comment trick second. Zero filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers which fields can change and one side effect, but leaves the partial-update contract, required permissions, and return value entirely unaddressed.

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 only 33%, and the description mostly just re-lists parameter names (priority, severity, tags) whose schemas have no descriptions or enums, so the agent gets no valid value guidance for them. It adds meaning for 'status' ('Closed' resolves) but also says 'assignee' while the actual parameter is 'assigned_to', a naming mismatch that could cause a wrong key.

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+resource ('Update an issue') and enumerates the mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from siblings like taiga_update_user_story and taiga_update_epic. It stops short of describing scope or prerequisites, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is only implied ('Update an issue'). The comment sentence hints at an alternative to taiga_add_comment, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus posting a standalone comment, nor does it mention that the issue must already exist or how to resolve the ID (taiga_resolve_ref).

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