update_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: renaming keeps existing associations intact. However, it omits other potentially relevant behavior such as uniqueness constraints, validation rules, permission requirements, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action and the one critical side-effect with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter CRUD operation, the description plus full schema coverage is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It falls slightly short of complete because there is no output schema and no mention of edge-case behavior such as invalid ids or duplicate labels, but these are minor for this level of complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both id and label. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it neither confuses nor significantly enriches parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('existing tag'), and adds that associations are preserved. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag and delete_tag without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly establishes the use case: renaming an existing tag rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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