taiga_severities_create

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 implies a mutation ('Create') but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or impact on existing data. There is no note about the return value or error conditions, leaving the agent blind to important behavioral traits.

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 brief (four words) but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The grammatical error and lack of structure (no param hints, no usage context) make it more a stub than an informative description. It front-loads the verb but sacrifices necessary detail.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what 'severities' are, how they relate to projects, or what fields are required beyond the schema. An agent cannot reliably determine when to invoke this tool or what configuration is needed.

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 semantics beyond the schema. While schema covers 60% of parameters (name, color, project have descriptions), the remaining 40% (order, is_closed) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the gap or clarify parameter relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('severities'), clearly identifying the action and distinguishing it from list/get/update/delete siblings. However, it lacks scope (e.g., project context) and has a grammatical error ('a new severities'), preventing a perfect score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, relationship to other severity tools (e.g., update, delete), or when creating a severity is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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