update_tag

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

Without any annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates properties, implying mutation, but omits crucial details: whether unset parameters remain unchanged (likely, given null defaults), auth requirements beyond [Auth: V2], rate limits, or side effects like cascading updates. This lack of depth leaves an agent uncertain about operational boundaries.

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 extremely concise: a single-line purpose, two bracket-enclosed metadata lines, and a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains all inputs but fails to mention the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated tag object). It also does not specify what happens to unset parameters (likely unchanged). For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, though the tool's simplicity partly compensates. The presence of sibling tools suggests more complex operations exist, but for this specific tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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 bears full responsibility. It adds meaningful context for all 5 parameters: 'name' is tied to list_tags, 'color' specifies hex format, 'parent' explains how to remove with empty string, 'sort_type' lists valid values, and 'sort_order' is described as numeric. However, it does not clarify default behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., color unchanged if not provided).

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 starts with 'Update an existing tag's properties.' which clearly states the verb (update), resource (tag), and scope (existing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, rename_tag, and list_tags, and the related list further helps differentiation.

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 includes [Related: list_tags, create_tag, rename_tag] implying contexts where those alternatives are used, and [Category: Tags] provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use this to change color, not to rename'). The prerequisite of obtaining the tag's internal name from list_tags is implied but not directly stated as a usage condition.

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