Create Epic

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing a non-obvious side effect: the epic is created via API but remains invisible in the Taiga web UI when the Epics module is disabled, with links 404ing. This adds crucial behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not cover. The remediation hint (use project_update) is also transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Create a new epic') and then deliver the essential caveat about module visibility. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant elaboration.

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 (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the most important non-obvious operational detail (module invisibility) and provides a remedial action. However, it does not explain the return value or the details of optional parameters, and the parameter semantics are thinly covered. Still, for a creation tool with required fields in the schema, it is reasonably 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 only 22%, and the description itself mentions no parameter details beyond the implicit 'project' in the module enablement context. Parameters like tags, color, status, milestone, assigned_to, and description are left completely unexplained, so an agent gets little semantic guidance about their values oreffects.

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 opens with 'Create a new epic,' a clear verb+resource combination that precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling epic_list, epic_get, epic_update, and epic_delete tools by focusing on creation. The added caveat about module visibility further specifies the creation behavior.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to create a new epic. It also provides conditional alternative guidance: if the Epics module isn't enabled, use project_update to enable it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from epic_update for modifications or other epic-related tools, relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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