taiga_issue_custom_attributes_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and merely restates that a custom attribute definition is created. It does not disclose required permissions, whether duplicate names are allowed, or how existing issue records are affected.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It is efficient, though extremely sparse, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness flaw.

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 creation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It leaves out response shape, required permissions, uniqueness implications, and the relationship to custom attribute values endpoints.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema covers name, type, and project, but the 'order' and 'description' parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the 60% schema coverage gap.

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 clearly states a create action for a custom attribute definition scoped to issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_task_custom_attributes_create or taiga_epic_custom_attributes_create.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the analogous create tools for epics, user stories, or tasks. There are also no notes about prerequisites such as existing project context or uniqueness constraints.

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