Update a tag

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific behavioral actions (rename or archive), but doesn't disclose additional traits like reversibility of archive or side effects. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence ('Renames or archives a tag.') that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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?

With 4 parameters, only 1 required, no output schema, and annotations that only cover read-only/destructive hints, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the archived parameter's effect (true vs false), whether rename is restricted for archived tags, or what the expected response is. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description leaves significant gaps.

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 only 50% (tag_id and workspace_id have descriptions, but name and archived do not). The description mentions 'renames' and 'archives' which implicitly map to name and archived, but it doesn't explicitly explain their semantics or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 states the tool renames or archives a tag, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tag and delete_tag by specifying the exact 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to rename or archive a tag) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it, making the usage guidance implied rather than stated.

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