Create a new tag for task organization. Provide a unique name and optionally a hex color (default #6366f1) to classify tasks.
创建新标签。name 必填，color 可选（hex 颜色值，默认 #6366f1）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 标签名称（必填，唯一） | |
| color | No | 标签颜色（hex 格式，如 #ff0000） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that name is required, color is optional with a default value (#6366f1), which adds some behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, uniqueness constraints (though schema notes it), or error behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists parameter requirements. There is zero extraneous information, and it is efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
For a simple creation tool with two parameters, the description covers the required and optional fields, including the default. The schema fills in uniqueness and format details. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description is adequate but could mention uniqueness or failure conditions to be fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the default color value (#6366f1), which is not present in the schema, and clarifies that color is optional. This exceeds the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 a specific action and resource: '创建新标签' (Create a new tag), with the verb and object clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tag_list and tag_delete. It is unambiguous and immediately identifiable as a creation operation.
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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage for creating a new tag, but offers no context on how it differs from category_create or when to prefer it over other tag operations. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.