taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_values_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Update' but does not state that this overwrites the entire map of attribute values, that a version is required for optimistic locking, or what happens on version conflict. No side effects, error behavior, or permission requirements are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and target with no filler. With only one sentence, it is maximally concise while still being meaningful.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits critical context about the version field's role in conflict checking, whether omitted attributes are cleared, and what the API returns. The description should explain the update semantics and conflict/error behavior to compensate for missing structured context.

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 fully documents all three parameters with descriptions (id, version, attributes_values). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 ('custom attribute values for a specific userstory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update custom attribute definitions (e.g., taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_update) or update values for other entity types (tasks, epics, issues).

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 vs. alternatives like taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_values_get or taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_update. It does not mention the version-based concurrency control or any prerequisites, making it unclear when a version value is needed.

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