set_tag

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: 'Only the args you pass are changed' (partial update semantics), how parent nesting works, and how clear_parent un-nests. This adds substantial context that the annotation alone does not cover, and there is no contradiction.

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 five sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical caveats and usage context without fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, partial update semantics, the create-or-edit behavior, parent nesting, and a recommended preread step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explicitly explains name matching, parent, and clear_parent, and the 'Only the args you pass are changed' sentence clarifies the update semantics for all optional parameters. However, it does not individually describe icon, color, description, or new_name, even though their purpose is implied.

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 'Create or edit a tag's own metadata' — a specific verb+resource pair. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_tags ('NOT what's tagged on an item'), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: it explains the case-insensitive matching against list_tags, the create-if-missing behavior, and points to set_tags as the alternative for item tagging. It also advises using list_tags(detail=True) first, providing a concrete workflow.

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