Create tag

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

The annotation destructiveHint=false already indicates a non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tag is intended for later attachment, but does not disclose details such as behavior on duplicate names or return values. It provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant information.

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 single-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the tag's purpose. It could mention uniqueness or return value, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter (required string, minLength 1). The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it scores at the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and identifies the resource ('a tag') plus its intended usage ('can later be attached to cases, plans, or runs'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like kiwi_list_tags (listing) and kiwi_case_add_tag (attaching an existing tag).

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 the tool is a prerequisite for attaching tags, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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