image_tag

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the image id stays the same, no data is copied, and tagging over an existing name repoints it without asking. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could mention permission requirements or side effects on other tags.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a concise behavioral note, a typical flow, and a compact Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, behavior, parameters, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or permission requirements, but for a tagging operation with a clear flow and return type, it is largely complete. The output schema exists, so return value details are already structured.

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 must compensate. It does: it explains id_or_name as the source image name or id, repository as the target repository name (with registry-qualified example), and tag as the new tag with a default of 'latest'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 states a specific verb ('Tag'), a resource ('an image into a repository'), and clarifies the operation as adding a name to an existing local image. It also distinguishes itself from related operations like image_push and image_remove, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides a typical flow ('tag with the registry-qualified name, then image_push') and explains when image_remove is relevant ('merely untags while other names remain'). It also warns about repointing behavior when tagging over an existing name, giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool.

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