locations_update_tag

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'update' – nothing about partial vs full updates, effects on existing tags, or response format. With annotations covering basic safety, the description still offers minimal added value.

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 extremely short ('Update tag'), which is concise but not informative. It lacks structure and front-loading of key details. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness – the one-word verb provides no useful guidance.

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 there is no output schema and no additional prose, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent would need to infer the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and side effects. The schema covers parameter names and defaults, but the overall context of the update operation (e.g., whether it renames the tag, partial updates, error conditions) is entirely absent.

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% – all three parameters (name, tagId, locationId) have explicit descriptions. The description adds nothing about parameters, but because the schema fully explains them, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No compensation needed.

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 is 'Update tag' – it states a verb and a resource but lacks any specificity. It does not clarify that this updates a tag in the Locations context, nor which properties can be changed, and it does not distinguish it from sibling operations like create, delete, or get tag. It is more than a pure tautology but only minimally communicates purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this modifies an existing tag's name, nor does it reference related tools such as locations_create_tag or locations_delete_tag. The agent receives no context to decide between similar operations.

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