Update a Baby Buddy tag by its slug to change its name or color, using the slug from list_tags.
Update an existing tag by slug. Tags are keyed by slug, not numeric ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New tag name | |
| slug | Yes | Slug of the tag to update (the 'slug' field from list_tags) | |
| color | No | New color as a hex code (e.g. #ff5733) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the keying behavior (slug-based) but doesn't state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to associated notes, whether the slug itself can be changed, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the keying clarification is valuable and 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the essential keying mechanism and the schema covers parameters. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the lack of behavioral context (partial vs full update, effects on related data) leaves the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the operation's implications.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the keying context (slug from list_tags) which helps the agent understand the slug parameter's origin, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for name and color. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing tag by slug'), and clarifies the keying mechanism ('Tags are keyed by slug, not numeric ID'). This distinguishes it from notes_delete_tag and notes_create_tag, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 usage context by explaining that tags are keyed by slug, which tells the agent to use the slug from list_tags. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the slug keying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.