docker_tag_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: a confirmation gate ('Needs confirm=true'). It does not state that tagging is additive/non-destructive, whether the source image must already exist locally, or what happens on name collision.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the confirmation requirement follows. The parenthetical adds CLI mapping value rather than repeating the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the confirm gate is covered. However, an undocumented 4-parameter schema with no annotations leaves the agent guessing about source/target/host semantics and failure conditions.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description only clarifies `confirm`. The mapping of 'an image' and 'a second name' to the `source`/`target` params is left implicit, and `host` is not mentioned at all.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Give an image a second name') and anchors it to the familiar CLI operation via '(docker tag)'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like docker_pull_image or docker_remove, though it names no explicit alternative.

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 prerequisite 'Needs confirm=true' is stated, which tells the agent the call requires an explicit confirmation flag despite the schema default of false. There is no guidance on when to tag versus when to build/pull/copy, so usage context is only implied.

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