Update Tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them: it does not say whether this is a partial update (does omitting name clear it?), whether renaming affects existing tag associations, or how failures behave.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is minimal but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, only 'id' is required, so a call with just an id is valid yet does nothing — this partial-update ambiguity is neither stated nor resolved by an output schema. The description is too thin given the mutation semantics at stake.

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 67%; id and name are documented (the name pattern being notably restrictive), but the 'description' property has no schema description. The tool description maps names to the two updatable fields but adds no format or optionality semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (rename/change) and resource (tag), and the two mutable fields are named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create-tag or update-contact, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as create-tag or get-tag, and no prerequisites or constraints (e.g., that at least one of name/description should be supplied). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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