Modify an existing Paperless-NGX tag by changing its name, color, matching pattern, or matching algorithm.
Update an existing tag's name, color, matching pattern, or matching algorithm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| match | No | ||
| matching_algorithm | No | Matching algorithm: 0=None, 1=Any word, 2=All words, 3=Exact match, 4=Regular expression, 5=Fuzzy word, 6=Automatic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / matching_algorithm / descriptionAdded value: +"Matching algorithm: 0=None, 1=Any word, 2=All words, 3=Exact match, 4=Regular expression, 5=Fuzzy word, 6=Automatic"Input schema / properties / matching_algorithm / maximumPrevious value: -4New value: +6v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It doesn't say which fields are optional vs required, whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens on an unknown id, or what permissions are needed.
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?
One tight sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the missing behavioral detail.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin — it should state required vs optional behavior, partial-update semantics, and error conditions. The field list alone 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 coverage is only 20%, so the description partially compensates by naming the four updatable attributes (name, color, matching pattern, matching algorithm), which map to color, match, and matching_algorithm. However it adds no format or value semantics — notably nothing about the enum meaning of matching_algorithm beyond the schema's own description.
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?
Clear verb (Update) plus resource (tag) and enumerates the mutable fields, so it's distinguishable from create_tag/delete_tag by name. It never explicitly references siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus bulk_edit_tags or update_document-style alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. tag must already exist), and no note on whether unspecified fields are left unchanged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.