tag_member

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detailed behavioral context: tags are case-insensitive, created if new, silently ignored if absent, idempotent, and returns 404 if member doesn't exist. It also clarifies that profile data and subscription status are unaffected. This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent.

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 well-structured: purpose sentence, behavioral details, usage guidance, parameter list, return format. Each section is concise and adds value. While it could be slightly tighter, it is not overly verbose and is easy to scan.

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 complexity (5 parameters, annotations, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, parameter semantics (mostly), return format, and error cases. The missing 'account' parameter description is a gap, but overall the tool is well-documented. The output schema exists, so return format details are not required.

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 must compensate. The 'Args' section explains list_id, email_address, tags_to_add, and tags_to_remove with clear formats and examples. However, the parameter 'account' (present in the schema) is not described in the Args section, leaving its purpose unclear. This omission prevents full compensation for the low 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Add or remove tags from a single member.' It also explicitly states what it does not modify ('Does not modify profile data or subscription status'), which distinguishes it from other member tools. Sibling differentiation is provided later when listing alternative tools.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Choose the right member tool: tag_member for per-member tag changes, add_members_to_segment for bulk-adding members to a tag/segment, add_member with tags param for tagging at signup, update_member for profile/status changes, get_member_tags to check current tags.' This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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