set_document_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds two things they don't: an authorization prerequisite ('requires edit access to each document') and a critical nuance that action=remove unlinks the assignment without deleting the tag itself, which reframes what 'destructive' means here. Missing detail on failure behavior for duplicate adds keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then routing guidance, then the caveat. No filler or restated schema text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-target mutation with an explicit alternative and an auth prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum meaning for action. The description's 'Add or remove' phrasing mirrors the schema text rather than adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 pair and resource ('add or remove an existing tag assignment') plus the scope constraint 'on one document', which immediately separates it from batch_documents. An agent can classify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (batch_documents) and the condition that selects it ('for the same tag action across multiple explicit IDs'). It also enumerates both modes of operation (add vs remove), leaving nothing to inference.

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