Apple Tag File

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false but no readOnlyHint, so the description's mention of replace/add/remove usefully signals mutating behavior. However, it does not explain the semantics of replacement, whether removing tags is reversible, or what happens with Apple Files synchronization. The description partially carries the behavioral burden but leaves important side effects unspecified.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the operations and target resource. There is no repetitive or filler content; every phrase adds meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool has only three parameters, the description is too thin for correct invocation. An agent still needs to know valid action strings and how the tags list behaves under add, replace, and remove actions. The tool is simple, but the invocation contract is underspecified.

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%, and the action parameter is a free-form string with no enum or description. The description lists four natural-language verbs but does not map them to the actual action values, especially the default 'get' versus the described 'read'. The interaction between the tags array and each action is also undocumented, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 identifies the verb and resource: read, replace, add, or remove Finder tags on a file or folder through Apple Files. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tag tools like files_get_tags or files_add_tags.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_set_tags, files_add_tags, or files_remove_tags. There is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent cannot reliably decide between this tool and related siblings.

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