update_tag

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

The description discloses partial update behavior ('Only include fields you want to change'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotency, and the description does not contradict them. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but for a simple update this is acceptable.

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 entire description is a single clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple CRUD update with ample schema coverage and idempotency hint. The description adequately covers the partial update behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention return values, but the 'fields' parameter suggests response customization. No major gaps for the tool's complexity.

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% with per-parameter descriptions. The description adds key semantics about partial updates (omitted fields remain unchanged), which the schema alone does not convey. It does not explain the 'fields' return parameter, but the schema handles that.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('product tag'), and the specific fields ('name, slug, or description'). It distinguishes from sibling update tools by specifying 'product tag'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to modify a tag's name, slug, or description) without describing alternatives. It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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