image_tag

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'The image id stays the same and no data is copied — a tag is an alias,' and 'image_remove on a tag merely untags while other names remain.' It also discloses the return value, going well beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line definition, a short explanatory paragraph, and a clear args/returns list. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tagging tool with 4 params and 2 required, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, return value, and relationship to push/remove. It provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing the output schema.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining id_or_name as source, repository with a registry-qualified example, and tag default. However, 'force - Force the tag' is tautological, and the stated default 'latest' conflicts with the schema's default null, creating ambiguity.

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 first sentence precisely states the action: 'Tag an image into a repository (add a name to an existing local image).' It distinguishes tagging from copying/pushing and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like image_push and image_remove by clarifying it only creates an alias.

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 clear usage context: 'Typical flow: tag with the registry-qualified name, then image_push,' and notes that image_remove on a tag merely untags. It establishes when to use tagging relative to push/remove, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for retagging or state exclusions.

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