muse_auto_tag

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'apply' which implies session modification, but lacks details on persistence, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action names.

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 two sentences: first states the overarching purpose, second enumerates actions. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word adds value. No redundancy.

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 tool has 13 parameters and 4 actions, but the description does not explain how actions map to parameter sets, expected workflows, or return values. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., suggested tags list). The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 100%, providing detailed param explanations. The description adds value by mapping actions to parameters (e.g., suggest/apply need sessionId, content), but the schema already specifies this via param descriptions. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool auto-tags sessions and lists four actions (suggest, apply, train, config). It specifies the verb and resource, making the main purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like muse_analyze_code.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools. The action enumeration is information but not usage guidance.

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