nexus_update_tag

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value by disclosing partial-update behavior, a possible moderator permission requirement, and the exact return shape. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured: action and scope, permission caveat, partial-update rule, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter schema, output schema presence, and useful annotations, the description covers the permission caveat, partial-update behavior, and return format. It could be slightly stronger by naming sibling create/discard tools or making the moderator requirement more definitive, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already defined. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining partial-update semantics: omitted fields are preserved, only supplied fields are changed. This is critical for safely invoking a 6-parameter update with only one required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing tag'. The word 'existing' clearly separates this from create/discard tag siblings, and 'via v2 GraphQL' adds implementation context. It is not a tautology and unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: permissions may be required, and only provided fields are changed while omitted fields stay as-is. This tells an agent how to perform a partial update. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives like nexus_create_tag or nexus_discard_tag, so it stops short of a 5.

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