update_space_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a safe read-like operation or a mutating one (though the verb implies mutation), whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to existing tag color when only name is provided, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and immediately clear on the core action. However, it's so concise that it omits necessary behavioral and parameter guidance.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 60% parameter coverage. The description does not explain the rename semantics (tag_name identifier vs new name), color handling, or any edge cases. For a mutation affecting state, this description is insufficiently complete, especially given the 5-parameter surface.

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 60%: name and space_id and tag_name have descriptions, but tag_bg and tag_fg lack any description. The description itself adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema. The tool description does not explain that tag_name is the current/identifying tag while name is the new value, which is a critical distinction for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the verb (Update) and the resource (a tag in a space), which clearly identifies the core action. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of a tag can be updated (name, colors), and there is no distinction made from siblings like create_space_tag or delete_space_tag, though those differ by verb naturally.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus create_space_tag, delete_space_tag, or get_space_tags. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., tag must already exist in the space), no exclusion criteria, and no mention of the relationship between tag_name and name parameters.

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