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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that a tag is created if it doesn't exist, that re-tagging with an existing tag changes nothing, and that the operation is rejected for public template IDs. These details enrich the behavioral context without contradicting 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence conveys essential information (identification methods, idempotency, rejection case). There is zero redundancy or 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 moderate complexity, complete schema documentation, and the presence of annotations, the description covers all key behaviors: idempotency, tag creation, and template rejection. It also references related tools for context. No output schema exists, so return details are not required. The description is comprehensive for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the mutual exclusivity ('Pass either this or tagName/tagId') and the creation behavior of tagName. The description merely restates this information without adding new meaning for parameter selection. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Adds a tag to a question bank', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like questionBank_removeTag and explains the two identification methods (tagName or tagId). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explains when to use this tool by clarifying the idempotent behavior and the rejection case for public template IDs, directing to questionBank_templateList. It references questionBank_tagList for tag IDs, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as questionBank_removeTag. Overall, it provides clear context but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement.

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