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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the 500-tag team limit, case/accent-insensitive dedup that returns the existing tag instead of erroring (reinforcing idempotentHint), team-wide sharing semantics, and an untrusted-data warning about the return value. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and lifecycle facts in tight prose. The injection warning is an extra line but justified for an untrusted-return tool; no filler sentences.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle: creation, dedup behavior, team quota, discovery via list_tags, and downstream usage via update_feedback. With no output schema needed, nothing an agent requires to call this correctly is missing.

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% and already documents maxLength 30 and HTML stripping, so the description needn't repeat it. The description adds the case/accent-insensitive name matching rule, which is meaningful but not schema syntax.

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?

Precise verb+resource ('Create one tag in the authenticated Ybug team account') with explicit scope (team-wide, shared across projects). Distinguishes itself from the sibling list_tags by clarifying the create vs. list relationship.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call list_tags first and prefer an existing tag over a near-duplicate, and routes the follow-up action to update_feedback add_tags. Names both the prerequisite tool and the downstream consumer.

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