Work items

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

The description explicitly warns that delete is permanent and that Taiga has no trash, and explains the batch create-only safeguard prevents accidental board clearing. This adds substantial safety context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. Every sentence provides operational guidance, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

All seven operations have their required parameters stated, the delete behavior carries a detailed permanence warning with rationale, and the batch limit is explicitly noted. Without an output schema, this description sufficiently covers invocation semantics for a complex 21-parameter tool.

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 all 21 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description only reiterates which parameters are required for specific operations (e.g., project required) without adding new semantic meaning. The schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states 'Manage Taiga work items (issues, user stories, tasks, epics)' and enumerates seven distinct operations with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, link, unlink, delete). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects, sprints, and wiki.

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 operation list provides clear context with required parameters for each operation (e.g., 'project required', 'item required') and includes a safety warning about delete being permanent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the separation from siblings is implicit in the description.

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