taiga_issue_statuses_update

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

The description only mentions 'partial' without explaining what happens to unspecified fields, whether the update is idempotent, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose mutation behavior or required authorization.

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 extremely short, but this conciseness comes at the expense of clarity; the phrase 'a issue statuses' is grammatically incorrect. It does not waste words, but the content is too sparse to be effective.

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 and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify the required id parameter, which fields are updatable, how partial updates behave, or what response to expect. For a mutation tool, this is a major gap.

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 only 20% (only 'id' has a description), and the tool description does not mention or explain any parameters. The meanings of 'name', 'color', 'order', and 'is_closed' are not provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'issue statuses', which clearly identifies the tool's action and target. The term '(partial)' hints at partial update but is vague and grammatically awkward. It is distinguishable from sibling update tools by the explicit 'issue statuses' resource.

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 like taiga_issue_statuses_create or update tools for other status types. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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