taiga_issue_custom_attributes_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates a definition, omitting partial-update semantics, required id, authentication needs, effects, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it does not achieve a perfect score.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain update semantics, required vs optional parameters, return values, or any constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient context beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 parameter description coverage is only 20% (only 'id' has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter. The optional fields (name, type, order, description) remain entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without meaningful semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom attribute definition') with scope ('for issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools for other entities (epic, userstory, task) and from value-update tools via the word 'definition'.

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 alternatives, such as the values_update sibling or the custom attribute create/get/delete tools. The intended usage is implied only by the bare action statement.

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