taiga_issues_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the update is partial, which is useful, but it omits critical behaviors: that 'version' is required for optimistic concurrency checking, that missing fields are left unchanged, error conditions, and any authentication or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specifying for a tool with 14 parameters and no other documentation. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices necessary content, making it merely minimally acceptable.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on usage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the required 'version' parameter, the partial update semantics, or any behavioral context needed by an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 14% (only 'id' and 'version' have descriptions). The description adds no information about any of the 12 undocumented parameters (e.g., 'status', 'priority', 'subject'), and does not compensate for the schema gaps. The word 'partial' implies only provided fields are updated, but it doesn't explain any parameter meaning.

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 operation: 'Update an issue (partial).' The verb 'Update' and resource 'issue' are unambiguous, and '(partial)' clarifies that this is a partial/field-wise update rather than a full replacement. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, but the tool name already identifies the resource type.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for full updates or for other resources (epics, tasks, user stories) one should use different tools, nor any prerequisites like the need to fetch the current version first.

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