taiga_userstory_statuses_bulk_update_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool name without adding any behavioral details. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, whether it replaces the entire order or partially updates, or any required permissions. This is a mutation tool, and the description offers no insight beyond the action itself.

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 fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it is almost a verbatim expansion of the tool name, which limits its informational value, though it remains appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the basic purpose, which is essentially the same as the tool name. The schema covers parameters, but there is no behavioral context, example usage, or mention of responses. An agent would need to infer key details about how the bulk order update works, making the description incomplete for a mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The parameters are described in the schema as 'Project ID' and 'Array of [id, order] pairs', which adequately explain their meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient information.

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 'Bulk update order of userstory statuses' clearly states the action (bulk update order) and the specific resource (userstory statuses), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_statuses_bulk_update_order or issue_types_bulk_update_order. It is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The differentiation from siblings is only implied by the resource name, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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