taiga_issue_custom_attributes_values_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'update'. It does not explain that the version parameter is used for optimistic concurrency, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified attribute values, or what the response contains. 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 concise sentence that accurately and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and it is properly front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 has three required parameters, including a nested object and a version for conflict checking, yet no output schema or annotations. The description omits essential usage context such as the need to obtain the current version first, whether the update is incremental or wholesale, and what the response looks like. For an update operation, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description ('issue ID', 'Current version for conflict check', 'Map of attribute_id -> value'). The description adds no extra semantic value, but since the schema already carries the burden, a 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 'Update custom attribute values for a specific issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this update-values tool from the corresponding get-values tool and from tools that update attribute definitions. It could further differentiate from sibling tools like taiga_issue_custom_attributes_update, but the phrase 'custom attribute values' provides enough clarity.

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. It does not mention the need to fetch the issue first to obtain the current version, nor does it contrast with the get-values or definition-update tools. The description only states the action without any context.

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