taiga_points_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', implying mutation, but provides no details about required permissions, side effects, duplicate handling, or return value. Minimal value beyond the verb.

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, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. However, the awkward phrasing 'a new points' detracts slightly from clarity.

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 description is too thin for a create operation with five parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what a 'point' is in the Taiga domain, what fields are required beyond the schema, or what the API returns on success.

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 description adds no parameter context beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 60%, leaving 'order' and 'is_closed' undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining these or any other parameters.

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 identifies a create operation for points, distinguishing it from sibling list/get/update/delete tools. The grammar is slightly awkward ('a new points') but the intent is unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. It does not indicate when to use this tool versus other point-related tools, nor any prerequisites like project membership or context for what points represent.

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