update_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing partial-update behavior, validation, idempotency, error handling, or potential side effects. The word 'existing' hints at failure if the tag is missing, but this is not explicit.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, but the description omits behavioral details like return values or error cases. It is minimally viable but not sufficiently helpful for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Update an existing tag' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and get_tag. It conveys both the action and the target resource unambiguously.

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 existing tags, contrasting with create_tag, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Context from sibling names helps but is not explicitly referenced.

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