tag_project_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It tells the agent this is a save operation, but does not disclose whether existing annotations are overwritten, what permissions are required, how invalid paths are handled, or that annotations are searchable later only in local scope.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and the kinds of data being saved efficiently.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. Important details such as overwrite behavior, permissions, notes purpose, and return semantics are 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps path, annotations (tags/notes), source, and license at a high level, but does not explain the tags array format, the distinction between tags and notes, or the expected string formats for source and license.

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?

States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('local annotations and user-declared source/license for an asset path'), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tagging action from sibling asset-mutation tools such as protect_asset or review_asset_update.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools for tagging or asset metadata. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over siblings.

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