taiga_userstories_update

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Partial' is a useful behavioral hint, but it fails to disclose that the 'version' field must match the latest version for optimistic concurrency control, or that this is a write operation that may fail. The schema documents 'version' as 'Current version for conflict check', but the description itself does not mention this critical behavior.

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 terse at five words, which is front-loaded but grossly under-specified for a tool with 13 parameters and a version-based conflict check. It functions more as a title than a functional description, lacking any structural explanation or additional context. Brevity here sacrifices necessary information.

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?

Given the high complexity (13 parameters, many with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the partial update behavior thoroughly, the requirement for a version parameter, or what response to expect. An agent would have almost no understanding of how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 very low (15%), and the description does not compensate. It only hints that a subset of fields may be updated, but it does not explain any of the individual parameters beyond the property names. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the agent to infer semantics for the 11 undocumented fields.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('user story'), and the word 'partial' defines the scope of the operation, distinguishing it from full-replace or bulk-update alternatives. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement that aligns with the tool name and differentiates it from sibling tools like taiga_userstories_get or taiga_userstories_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool. It does not mention any prerequisites, the need for a version number, or contrast with other update-related tools such as bulk_update_backlog_order. The phrase 'partial' implies that only provided fields should be updated, but there is no explicit context about when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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