taiga_issue_statuses_create

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'create' without disclosing permissions, required fields, idempotency, or response behavior. The verb implies a destructive write operation, but no additional transparency is provided.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it suffers from a grammatical issue and lacks any structural elements (e.g., prefix, bullet points) that would aid scanning. It is concise but under-specified.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a description that only names the action, the agent lacks context about required inputs, side effects, or return value. This is insufficient for safe invocation of a mutation tool with five parameters.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the undocumented 'order' or 'is_closed' fields, nor does it reinforce that project and name are required.

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?

Description clearly states an action (create) and a resource (issue statuses), and the 'issue' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling status creation tools (e.g., task statuses, user story statuses). However, the plural 'statuses' is grammatically awkward and could ambiguously imply creating multiple statuses at once, which is not clarified.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that project and name are required, nor does it explain how this differs from listing, updating, or deleting issue statuses.

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