taiga_severities_update

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'partial' qualifier indicates that only supplied fields are modified, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, side effects, or the response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool. The description is too sparse to be transparent about the tool's behavior beyond the core action.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action 'Update' and immediately qualifies it with '(partial)', making it very efficient. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description combined with the input schema provides enough information for a basic invocation: provide an id and optionally other fields. The 'partial' qualifier is crucial for understanding the update behavior. However, it omits details about the response format and any side effects, which might be necessary for full completeness. Given the low complexity of the operation, this earns a moderate score.

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 has only 20% description coverage, with only the id parameter given a description. The description's '(partial)' helps clarify that all other parameters are optional and only provided ones are updated, adding semantic value beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning of each field, but the field names (name, color, order, is_closed) are self-explanatory, and the partial-update context compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states the action 'Update' and the resource 'severities', making it unambiguous that this is the update operation for severity records. The '(partial)' qualifier adds useful context that it is a partial/PATCH update, distinguishing it from a full replacement or other severity-related tools. Even with the grammatical quirk 'a severities', the purpose is clear, especially considering sibling tools like taiga_severities_create and taiga_severities_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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, as an update operation, its usage is implied: it is the tool to modify an existing severity record, which is evident from the verb and the presence of sibling tools like taiga_severities_create and taiga_severities_delete. No guidance is given for distinguishing it from bulk_update_order, but the implied context is sufficient.

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