taiga_severities_bulk_update_order

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 only says 'bulk update order,' implying a write operation, but does not explain whether the provided pairs replace the entire order, how unlisted severities are affected, or any project-level constraints. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score of 5.

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 is relatively simple with two fully described parameters and no output schema, so the description provides a minimal viable summary. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., order semantics, effect on unlisted severities, authentication expectations) that would be valuable for a bulk mutation tool with no annotations. It is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters clearly ('Project ID' and 'Array of [id, order] pairs'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not compensate or add further context.

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 a specific action ('bulk update') and resource ('order of severities'), clearly indicating it reorders severities. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bulk_update_order tools, but the resource name is unambiguous. It is more informative than a mere tautology but lacks the specificity of top-tier descriptions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as `taiga_severities_update` for single severity changes or other bulk order update tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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