fizzy_add_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the auto-create behavior ('Creates the tag if it doesn't exist'), which is valuable. However, it does not address idempotency or what happens if the tag is already on the card, leaving minor gaps.

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 a single, succinct sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the primary action. It contains no extraneous words or repetition of schema fields, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main action and side effect, and the schema handles parameter details. It lacks minor context like board/global scope of tags and duplicate behavior, but these are not critical for a basic add operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a tag to a card'), making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fizzy_remove_tag by clearly stating the operation. The side effect of creating the tag if needed adds further specificity.

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 usage for adding tags but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving context to be inferred. This is acceptable but not exemplary.

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