taiga_task_custom_attributes_values_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'update' without clarifying critical details like merge vs. replace semantics, behavior on version conflicts, required permissions, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with a version parameter.

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, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place with maximum efficiency.

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 full schema coverage, the description omits key operational context: the version parameter's role in conflict checking is only in the schema, and there is no explanation of partial vs. full replacement or response behavior. With no annotations or output schema, these gaps remain unfilled.

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 100% — all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond restating that custom attribute values are being updated, which is sufficient given the schema already documents each parameter.

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 custom attribute values for a specific task' uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('custom attribute values'), and narrows scope ('specific task'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools for epics, user stories, and issues, as well as from taiga_task_custom_attributes_update which updates attribute definitions rather than values.

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 gives clear context that this tool is task-specific, which implicitly tells the agent to use it when updating custom attribute values on a task. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., epic/userstory/issue variants), so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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