taiga_edit_userstory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the prerequisite that a current version must be fetched first, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what happens on version conflict, whether the operation is a partial update, or what the return value is, leaving transparency incomplete.

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 concise, single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential prerequisite but omits information about the return value and error handling. It is adequate for a simple edit operation 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the version parameter's prerequisite, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'Edit an existing user story.' It uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing user story'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_create_userstory and taiga_delete_userstory. The word 'existing' also implies it requires an ID, further clarifying its scope.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to fetch the current version with taiga_get_userstory before editing, providing clear context for the required workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the reference to 'existing' implies it is for updates rather than creation, so it gives clear context without exclusions.

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