updateTagUpdate specific tag by id - Update attributes to your tag. Attributes are optional. If not set, the attributes will retain their original values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tagId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| updateTagBody | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a key behavioral detail: unspecified attributes retain their original values, indicating partial-update semantics. This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) and clarifies that not all fields need to be provided. Missing error/return behavior, but the added nuance is valuable.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff, but the phrase 'Update attributes to your tag' is slightly awkward and repetitive. The front-loaded title and description are efficient overall, earning a strong score for conciseness.
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 simple nature of the tool, the presence of annotations, and some schema descriptions for the body fields, the description covers the essential partial-update behavior. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist), but it is not necessary for a basic update operation.
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 description explicitly states that attributes are optional, which is critical semantics not conveyed by the schema (where only the updateTagBody object is required). This compensates for the low schema description coverage (0%). It does not explain tagId or headers, but those are standard identifiers and trace fields.
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 action ('Update'), the resource ('tag'), and the identifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createTag and deleteTag, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 intended usage is implied: modifying an existing tag. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The partial-update note gives some context but no direct comparison with other tag operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.