Create or update a workspace tag to organize documents. Renaming or recoloring a tag reindexes affected documents; full workspace write access is required.
Create or update a workspace tag. Full workspace write access is required; renaming or recoloring a tag causes affected documents to be reindexed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the permission requirement and the side effect that renaming or recoloring reindexes affected documents, which the agent could not infer from the 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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the operational caveats second. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.
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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry the behavioral and permission context, which it does. It stops just short of routing guidance to sibling tools, which is the only real gap.
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 100%, so the create/update oneOf branches, name, color and id constraints are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Create or update a workspace tag'), clearly distinguishing it from the delete_tag sibling by its save semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with save_category or save_folder, but the resource noun makes the target 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?
Gives one precondition (full workspace write access required) and one consequence (renaming/recoloring triggers reindexing), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it never says when to prefer delete_tag, set_document_tag, or the create vs. update action branches beyond what the schema enforces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.