tag_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavior: 'Refuses dead handles' (error handling for invalid entities) and 'Tags live beside the drawing and survive sessions' (persistence). This gives valuable insight beyond the schema.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second and third sentences add examples and behavioral detail. The 'ghosts' metaphor is somewhat poetic but not overly verbose; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, key behavior (dead-handle refusal, persistence), and integration with world_report. It lacks detail on return values, the note parameter, and any prerequisites, but is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'role' with examples and implies 'handle' is an entity reference ('refuses dead handles'), but it does not clarify the 'note' parameter or provide explicit meanings for handle and role beyond the parameter names.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Give an entity a semantic ROLE in the drawing's memory.' It provides concrete examples ('muro-nord', 'asta-principale') and distinguishes itself from sibling geometry/entity tools by focusing on semantic roles rather than geometric properties.

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 conveys its niche: assigning persistent, meaningful labels to entities. It mentions that 'world_report revalidates them against the live drawing,' implying this tool is for creating tags that world_report later checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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