taiga_edit_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a mutating operation ('Edit') and highlights the version requirement, which suggests concurrency control. However, it does not state what happens to omitted fields, whether updates are partial or full, or what response to expect—key behavioral context for a write tool.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a critical usage instruction. No fluff or redundant information—every word earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It covers the core purpose and prerequisite but lacks details about return values, field-update behavior, or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only repeats the version requirement already described in the schema property. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Edit an existing epic', which is a specific verb and resource (edit + epic). It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_get_epic (read) and taiga_create_epic (create) by explicitly contrasting with the fetch-first step.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Fetch the current version with taiga_get_epic before editing.' This tells the agent the prerequisite and workflow. It implies that this tool is for modifying an existing epic, not for creating or deleting (covered by siblings), although no explicit 'when not to use' statement is included.

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