taiga_userstory_statuses_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at partial update semantics, but does not mention required permissions, reversibility of changes, or what happens to fields not specified in the request.

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 brief and front-loaded with a verb, but the grammar is awkward ('a userstory statuses') and it omits critical information. It is concise but not well-structured for maximum comprehension.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and dozens of sibling tools, this single-phrase description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or how partial update behaves in practice, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the 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 only 20% (only 'id' is described). The description adds no parameter-level meaning; 'partial' vaguely implies that fields are optional, but the schema already shows id as required while others are optional. It does not clarify the meaning or acceptable values for name, color, order, or is_closed.

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 userstory statuses (partial)' essentially restates the tool name's verb and resource, adding only 'partial' as a qualifier. It does not clarify what a userstory status is or distinguish this update tool from the many other status update tools in the sibling list, though it does indicate an update 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like taiga_userstory_statuses_list, taiga_task_statuses_update, or other update operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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