add_tags_to_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the required parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, whether tags are appended or replace existing ones, how many assets can be affected, or what happens on failure. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond parameter requirements.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and requirements. It's front-loaded with the main action and doesn't contain unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from requirements more clearly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, the scope of the operation (batch size limits), or side effects. Given the complexity of filtering assets and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more complete context for safe usage.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the two required parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets 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 clearly states the action ('Add tags') and target ('to specific assets based on filters'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_tags_from_assets' or 'create_auto_asset_tag', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by stating 'Requires specifying `filter.includedEndpointIds` and `tags`', which indicates prerequisites. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_tags_to_organization' or 'start_tagging', nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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