Add Card Tag

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the critical auto-create side effect — a tag with this name will be created if missing and will appear in kaiten_list_workspace_tags — which annotations cannot convey. It also elaborates the idempotency detail ("returns the same tagId, no duplicate") and clarifies the return object's role. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, parameter provenance, side effects, return-value usage, and idempotency. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return value (tag object including its ID) is necessary and well handled. The description covers side effects, duplicate prevention, workspace-tag visibility, and parameter provenance — comprehensive for a 2-parameter operation. Minor gaps remain around error conditions (e.g., nonexistent cardId), which prevents a 5.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain cardId and by enriching the semantics of name with the auto-creation consequence, going beyond the schema's brief "Tag name (auto-created if missing)".

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?

"Attach a tag to a card by name" uses a specific verb, resource, and method, making the action unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools kaiten_remove_tag, kaiten_list_card_tags, and kaiten_list_workspace_tags, and no schema inspection is needed to tell them apart.

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 gives explicit provenance guidance ("cardId from kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_card") and explains how the returned tagId feeds into kaiten_remove_tag, which routes the agent to related operations. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context it provides is sufficient for correct selection.

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