taiga_issue_statuses_bulk_update_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Bulk update order of issue statuses,' which implies a mutation but does not mention permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to unsorted statuses, or any potential side effects. This is comparable to the update_drive example where 'update' implied mutation but lacked crucial details.

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, which is easy to scan. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding value or structure that helps an agent decide when to use it. It is appropriately short but lacks the informative substance of a well-crafted description.

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 bulk mutation tool operating on project-specific issue statuses, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the expected format or semantics of the 'order' values, whether the operation replaces all existing ordering, or how errors are handled. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be considered complete.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters: project (Project ID) and bulk_orders (Array of [id, order] pairs). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic context about ordering conventions, indexing, or whether all statuses must be included in the array.

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 the action: 'Bulk update order of issue statuses.' The verb 'update' and resource 'order of issue statuses' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling bulk_update_order tools by identifying the target resource (issue statuses), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as taiga_userstory_statuses_bulk_update_order or taiga_task_statuses_bulk_update_order. No context is provided about prerequisites, whether the user should first list statuses, or any scenario-based recommendations.

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