wisdom_tag_fragment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply a tag via relation' implies a state-changing operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicate relations are prevented, whether the tag can be created on the fly, or what side effects occur.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It could provide more behavioral context, but as written it is concise and easy 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 simple two-parameter operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: an agent can identify the inputs. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no information about relation semantics or tag existence requirements, there are enough gaps that the description is not fully complete.

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%, with both parameters already documented as 'Tag UUID or name' and 'Fragment UUID'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (apply a tag) and a target resource (a fragment), and clarifies the mechanism ('via relation'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic relation-creation tools like wisdom_create_relation, though it could be more explicit about whether the tag must already exist.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_create_relation, wisdom_create_tag, or wisdom_link_answer. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond the sibling tool names, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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