taiga_points_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior; it only says 'Update a points (partial)'. It does not mention required permissions, effects on unspecified fields, error handling, or response format. The partial modifier adds minimal transparency.

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 and front-loaded, but it is a grammatically awkward fragment ('a points') and omits useful context that could be added without bloat. It is concise but not well-constructed.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about return values, side effects, required permissions, or field meanings. The single 'partial' hint is insufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Only the id parameter has a schema description ('ID'); name, color, order, and is_closed are undocumented. With schema description coverage at 20%, the description should compensate but instead names no parameters or expected formats. An agent cannot infer the meaning or constraints of the optional fields.

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 the operation as an update to points, and the word 'partial' indicates PATCH-style modification. This differentiates it from sibling tools like taiga_points_create and taiga_points_delete, which perform different CRUD operations.

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 instead of taiga_points_create or taiga_points_list, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The only hint is 'partial', which implies field-level updates but does not state a concrete use case.

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