taiga_projects_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the partial-update nature, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise without sacrificing the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It identifies the resource and operation but does not explain the fields, expected return value, or any behavioral constraints. An agent relying solely on this description would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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 13% (only 'id' has a description), and the description does not compensate. 'Partial update' implies that the fields are optional, but it does not explain the meaning or purpose of fields like is_private, is_wiki_activated, or is_backlog_activated beyond their names. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 'Update a project (partial update)' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (project), and adds the important scope qualifier 'partial update' which distinguishes it from full replacement. This clearly differentiates it from sibling project tools like taiga_projects_create, taiga_projects_get, and taiga_projects_delete.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, mention when to prefer create/delete, or note any permissions needed. The only implied usage is 'when you need to update a project,' which is not explicit enough to guide an agent.

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