tag_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces any existing tags on the row, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, authorization requirements, or what happens if the command_id does not exist.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds examples and behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and the overwriting behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, which would make it more 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. It does not explain what 'command_id' or 'tags' represent beyond their names, nor does it provide constraints, format, or examples. The schema already shows required fields, but the description adds no value.

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 tool attaches tags to a logged command for later recall, with specific examples like 'flaky', 'slow', etc. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'forget_command' or 'query_command_history', which would merit a 5.

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 examples of when to use the tool (marking commands as flaky, slow, etc.) but offers no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist among sibling tools. There is no explicit statement of context or exclusions.

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