tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the actions (add, remove, list) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., valid cache_key), reversibility, or return format for the 'list' action. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and provides relevant context about tag usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple (3 parameters, no output schema) and the description covers its core purpose. However, it omits behavioral details like what 'list' returns or whether tags are case-sensitive, which would be useful given the lack of annotations and output schema. It is adequate but has room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described in detail, including constraints and examples for 'tags' and an enum for 'action'. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that tags are broad topic categories, which is already in the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Add, remove, or list tags on a transcription.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also explains that tags are 'broad topic categories' for organizing memories, which adds helpful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'chapters' or 'highlights' that also operate on transcriptions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: tags help 'organize and filter memories in the Web UI.' This implies the tool is for categorizing transcriptions with broad topics. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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