superset_tag_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a critical behavioral detail: the name field is required even if unchanged, and omitting it causes Superset to return a 500 error. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not mention permissions or response shape.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clearly highlighted IMPORTANT caveat, and a simple args list. Every element earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool, this description is complete: it covers all parameters, highlights the critical required-name quirk, and notes the failure mode. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: tag_id is the target ID, name is required even if unchanged, and description is optional. It adds meaningful version-specific insight (Superset 6.0.1 required name) that the schema alone cannot convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a tag (rename or change description).' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_tag_create, superset_tag_delete, and superset_tag_list.

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 clearly indicates usage for updating existing tags (rename or change description). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and scope are sufficiently clear that an agent would know when to select this tool over create/delete/list siblings.

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