taiga_epics_related_userstories_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., items must exist), idempotency (e.g., what happens if already added), or error/return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It fits the purpose perfectly without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 fully described parameters, but without annotations or output schema, the description does not explain what the caller should expect in response, error conditions, or any preconditions. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but leaves clear gaps in behavioral context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'Epic ID' and 'User Story ID' clearly defined. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the action itself, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description 'Add a user story to an epic' uses a specific verb and identifies both resources (user story, epic), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, remove, or bulk_create. It precisely states the action performed.

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?

The description makes the primary use case obvious: when you need to associate a user story with an epic. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., bulk_create for adding multiple) or exclusions, so it is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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