tag_item

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 states the action ('Add a tag') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the tag already exists on the item, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the target resources. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message, updated item) or failure (e.g., error if tag/item doesn't exist). Given the complexity of associating tags with items and the lack of structured behavioral hints, more context would be helpful.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain tag naming conventions, UUID format, or implications of the type default). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Add a tag') and the target resources ('to a task or note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'untag_item' or 'create_tag', but the verb 'Add' versus 'untag' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what gets tagged rather than just restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'untag_item' (for removal) or 'create_tag' (for tag creation without association). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tag or item) or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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