ticktick_update_tag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which annotations don't cover. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description doesn't contradict these. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when properties aren't specified.

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 with only two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information: the core purpose and authentication requirement. There's no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with 1 parameter (a nested object with 3 sub-properties), 0% schema description coverage, but with annotations covering safety (non-destructive, idempotent) and an output schema existing, the description is minimally adequate. It covers authentication and general purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'properties (color, etc.)', which hints at the 'color' parameter and suggests other properties exist, but doesn't detail the 'name' (required current name) or 'new_name' parameters. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a tag's properties'), with specific examples ('color, etc.'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_tag' and 'ticktick_delete_tag' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ticktick_rename_tag', which appears to be a more specific update operation.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires v2 API authentication', which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_rename_tag' (which might handle name changes specifically) or 'ticktick_merge_tags'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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