Add Tag

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 one meaningful side effect: tagging a booker 'stops the sequence.' It says nothing about idempotency (re-tagging an already-tagged lead), permissions, error behavior, or whether tagging creates a new tag label.

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?

It is front-loaded with 'Tag a lead' and reasonably short, but the closing justification ('the most avoidable bad impression in outreach') is persuasive padding that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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 the tag-value convention plus the sequence-stopping effect are covered. Still, for a 3-param, 0%-coverage, annotation-free mutation tool, key invocation details (what list_id/linkedin_url mean, idempotency of tagging) are missing.

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% across three required params, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for `tag` (use signal type + campaign, not channel), but says nothing about what `list_id` or `linkedin_url` identify or how they interact.

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 opening 'Tag a lead' gives a clear verb+resource, and the rest of the text specifies what kind of tag value to apply (signal type + campaign). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings that also mutate lead state, such as set_lead_state, and never clarifies whether it creates the tag or applies a pre-existing one.

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?

It implies when to tag ('tag anyone who books a call, so the sequence stops') and how to choose the tag value ('by signal type and campaign rather than by channel'). However, this is workflow advice rather than tool-selection guidance: no alternative tool is named and no condition for preferring add_tag over set_lead_state is given.

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