update_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. The description implies mutation but doesn't disclose whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, what happens to fields not specified, or whether tags can be renamed freely. It's somewhat transparent about being a mutation but lacks depth on update mechanics and side effects.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately concise given the schema already carries the parameter details. Could arguably be slightly more detailed about what 'update' entails, but for conciseness this is well-calibrated.

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 output schema and no annotations. The description is thin—it doesn't explain partial vs full update semantics, whether all optional fields must be provided together, potential validation failures on the title field, or whether missing optional fields are reset to defaults. For a write operation, this leaves meaningful ambiguity for an 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 100%, so the schema documents all 5 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline-3 rule when schema coverage is high. The schema provides field-level semantics adequately.

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 'Update an existing tag' uses a specific verb plus resource, clearly indicating this tool modifies an existing tag. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the creation/deletion siblings have distinct names (create_tag, delete_tag), so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention required fields, partial update semantics (whether unspecified optional fields are preserved or cleared), or any preconditions like the tag needing to exist. Around the same domain, create_tag/delete_tag are alternative operations but no usage context is given.

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