Create a tag

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the workspace scope. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether duplicate names are accepted, error handling, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description combined with the schema is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is the lack of information about the return value or any side effects beyond adding a tag.

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?

The schema fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions, including the fallback behavior for workspace_id. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'adds' and identifies both the resource ('tag') and the scope ('workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_tag and delete_tag, which perform different operations on tags.

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 the tool should be used when creating a new tag in the workspace, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. For a simple create tool, the context is decent but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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