taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey the tool's side effects. It clearly states it creates a definition, which implies a mutating operation, but adds no detail about permissions, duplicate name behavior, or whether the creation is project-scoped beyond the schema's 'project' parameter. For a simple create tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that puts the action verb first. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource, with no filler or unnecessary 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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the API returns upon successful creation, nor does it mention validation rules or error conditions (e.g., duplicate names, required permissions). This leaves the agent without a full picture of the tool's behavior.

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 60%: 'name', 'type', and 'project' have descriptions, but 'order' and 'description' do not. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics or compensate for the missing descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'order' means or how 'description' is used.

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 identifies the exact resource ('custom attribute definition for userstory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_list, get, update, and delete, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 implies the tool is used for creating custom attribute definitions for user stories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as the update or list tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage context is only hinted at by the resource name.

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