taiga_tasks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'partial', which hints at partial-update semantics, but it does not disclose version-conflict behavior, permission requirements, side effects, or response format. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, one sentence with no wasted words. It lacks structured sections, but for a simple CRUD operation, that is acceptable. It is shorter than ideal but every word earns its place.

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 has 13 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is extremely minimal, offering no elaboration on the meaning of the many optional fields, the version-conflict mechanism, or expected outcomes. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with confidence.

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 15%, covering just id and version. The description does not list or explain any of the other 11 parameters. The word 'partial' implies that only provided fields are updated, which is a small semantic contribution, but it does not compensate for the lack of descriptions for fields like status, milestone, assigned_to, etc.

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 task (partial).' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (task). The word 'partial' adds useful detail about the operation's nature, distinguishing it from create/delete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other update tools for different resources, though the tool name itself makes this clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name 'taiga_tasks_update' and the sibling list imply that it is used to modify an existing task, in contrast to create or delete. This is implied usage rather than explicit.

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