tag_thread

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that tags are additive and existing tags preserved, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, output format, or error conditions. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Very concise: two sentences for purpose and behavior, then a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Clear and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema (even if not shown), the description covers key aspects: purpose, additive behavior, parameter format. Missing return value description could be a minor gap, but overall sufficient for an additive tagging tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the 'tags' parameter as comma-separated and providing an example. The 'thread_id' explanation is minimal but sufficient. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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?

Clearly states 'Add tags/labels to a thread' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Tags are additive — existing tags are preserved' further clarifies behavior, distinguishing it from untag_thread.

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?

Provides explicit examples of tags to use (e.g., 'vip', 'bug-report') and mentions that tags are for categorization. While it doesn't directly say when not to use, the examples and additive nature implicitly guide usage. Sibling untag_thread suggests removal alternative.

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