tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the actions and their parameter dependencies but omits side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or permission requirements. For a tool that mutates tags, more behavioral context is needed.

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 concise, uses a bulleted list for actions, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 5 parameters and conditional requirements per action, the description adequately maps parameters to actions. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value details are not required. However, it lacks information on error handling, pagination for list, or behavior when tags already exist.

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%, and the description adds meaning by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'tags: Comma-separated tags (required for add, remove)') and providing example values. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Manage notebook tags and find relevant notebooks by tag matching' and lists four distinct actions (add, remove, list, select). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'label' or 'notebook_query'.

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 implies when to use each action via parameter requirements (e.g., 'required for add, remove') but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or sibling differentiation are provided.

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