update_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, error conditions, or what the update affects. While concise, it fails to provide the contextual information an agent needs to use this tool effectively and safely.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like accountId/containerId/workspaceId hierarchy, what 'tag type' means, or how 'parameter array' should be structured. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('update') and resource ('existing tag') in Japanese, making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_tag' and 'delete_tag' by specifying it's for updating rather than creating or deleting. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the tag can be updated beyond the general concept.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing tag), when not to use it, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'delete_tag'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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