Update a tag

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the operation modifies the site's content, that it will not make anything public, and that it requires a specific auth scope. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, providing useful behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Update a tag') and then provide essential context. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, auth requirements, and the non-public nature of the update. While it does not mention return values or error cases, the schema provides useful details for id and if_match. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably 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 50% (id and if_match are described, name and slug are not). The description does not elaborate on the name or slug parameters beyond implying they are updated. It adds little semantic value over the schema, so a mid-range score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a tag.' It adds scope by saying 'Changes content on the customer's Site' and distinguishes from publishing tools with 'Nothing becomes public: publishing is always a separate call.' This makes it specific and differentiates it from sibling update operations.

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 context on when to use the tool: for updating a tag without making it public, and mentions the separate publishing step. It also gives the prerequisite of a secret key with taxonomy:write scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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