replay_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is a mutation (sets/removes tags) and mentions a default session, but it does not reveal whether operations are destructive (e.g., overwriting existing name), whether removing non-existent tags is safe, or what the response looks like. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the action and default. The description is front-loaded and efficient, earning every sentence.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main operation and default session, but omits behavior details (e.g., what happens if both add and remove reference the same tag, whether the tool returns confirmation, or if it is safe to call repeatedly). More context would be needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the overall operation ('Sets a name and/or adds/removes tags') and the default behavior for session_id. It synthesizes the individual parameters into a coherent use case, which helps the agent understand how the parameters interact.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Name or tag a session') and specifies the action ('Sets a name and/or adds/removes tags'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like replay_status or replay_checkpoint, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., replay_search). The purpose is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 an implicit usage clue by noting the default session ('default: the most recent'), which helps the agent understand when to omit session_id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., replay_search for retrieving by tags), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is minimal but not absent.

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