tag_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'add or remove' but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires special permissions, whether it replaces all tags or only modifies the specified ones, or what happens if a tag doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to obtain valid tag names (e.g., via list_tags). The schema covers parameter semantics, but broader usage context is missing.

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 each parameter and the nested status field well-described in the schema (e.g., 'active = add, inactive = remove'). The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Add or remove tags on a member' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like add_member (add a member) or create_tag (create a tag definition). It precisely states the scope: managing tag associations on an existing member.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for applying existing tags to a member, as opposed to creating tags with create_tag.

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