set_tag

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is metadata-only and never touches the token, which signals safety. However, it does not explain what happens on success/failure, whether the tag is validated, or if there are side effects.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. It directly states the action, provides an example, and adds a critical safety note. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, parameter source, and safety profile. It lacks details on return value or error conditions, but for a straightforward mutation, it is largely 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context by noting that 'account' is a connected account ref and cross-referencing list_accounts for valid values, which aids parameter selection. The 'tag' parameter description is minimal but sufficient.

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 verb 'Change' and the resource 'your tag for a connected account', with an example ('switch personal to work'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like connect_account or create_label by specifying it only modifies metadata and never touches the token.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_account or list_accounts. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., account must already be connected) or mention scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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