tags

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions and doesn't mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response formats. For a tool that can delete tags, such details are notably absent.

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 brief, with two short sentences. The first sentence ('Manage space tags.') is somewhat redundant with the second but not overly wasteful. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a solid score.

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 schema provides full parameter details, and the actions are clear, but the description doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how to distinguish between assign/unassign operations. Given the CRUD nature and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 fully explains all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the actions. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't compensate or add value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it manages space tags and enumerates the four actions (list, create, update, delete), making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tags_assign, but the use of 'manage' and the action list implies CRUD operations, which is distinct enough.

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 when to use this tool—when you need to manage tags via CRUD actions—but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like tags_assign or tags_unassign. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, so it meets the 'implied usage' standard.

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