taiga_update_user_story

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely does not: it never says if this is a partial update (omitted fields untouched), what errors occur on unknown status names, or whether the comment fails the whole update. It does add one useful trait — that 'comment' is posted in the same call — but that is already in the schema.

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 compact sentences with the mutable-field list front-loaded and the comment side-effect second. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted words.

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, 8 parameters, and 25% schema coverage needs far more: partial-update semantics, status-name failure behavior, atomicity on failure, and unassign/empty-string conventions for the remaining fields are all absent.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, yet it only adds the meaningful note that status is passed by name rather than ID. sprint_id, tags, subject, and description get no semantics in either place, leaving half the parameters effectively 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update story fields") and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what the call does. The resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings like taiga_update_issue and taiga_update_epic, but no explicit sibling differentiation is offered.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus taiga_create_user_story, taiga_add_comment, or taiga_get_user_story first to check state. Usage is only implied by the name. No prerequisites (permissions, existing story_id) are mentioned.

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