wb_tag_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trap: the operation attaches or detaches tags based on the full supplied list, meaning omitted tags will be removed. It does not mention auth, limits, or error behavior, but the destructive replacement semantics are clearly communicated.

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 one compact, front-loaded statement with no fluff. Every clause contributes: the operation, the resource, and the critical full-list requirement. The Russian parenthetical is redundant but does not undermine readability.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is usable but not fully self-sufficient: nm_id is left to inference from domain conventions, and there is no explicit statement that an empty array clears all tags. The core behavior is present, but an agent would benefit from more parameter-level context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains the semantics for tag_ids via 'FULL new tag list'; it does not define nm_id as the card/product identifier, nor does it explain how to obtain valid tag_ids.

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 a concrete operation (attach/detach tags) and a clear resource (a card), and the 'FULL new tag list' clause clarifies that this is a set-replacement operation rather than a simple add. It is distinguishable from tag-management siblings like wb_tag_create/wb_tag_update/wb_tag_delete because it acts on card-tag associations, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Pass the FULL new tag list' gives important usage guidance: callers are expected to provide the complete desired tag set, not a delta. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over wb_tags or wb_tag_update/delete, nor does it mention exclusions like managing tag definitions separately.

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