taiga_edit_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the need to fetch the current version first, implying optimistic locking, but does not explain failure modes, authentication needs, or whether fields update individually. Some behavioral context is added but not exhaustive.

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 one concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core operation and a key prerequisite, with no wasted words.

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 simple edit tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential instruction (fetch current version first). It adequately covers the operation without needing to explain return values, though it could mention version-mismatch behavior for extra completeness.

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%, with every parameter already having a descriptive comment. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool edits an existing task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_edit_userstory or taiga_create_task by naming the task resource explicitly.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to fetch the current version with taiga_get_task before editing, which is a clear sequential prerequisite. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use create for new tasks), but the instruction is actionable.

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