Tag assets

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description corroborates this with "Side effect: adds tag association to assets" rather than contradicting it. It also discloses the return shape (tag_id, count, per-asset results), adding context beyond annotations, though it says nothing about idempotency or behavior when an asset already has the tag.

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?

Purpose and the bulk use case are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the side effect immediately after. The Args/Returns blocks are slightly redundant given a full input schema and an output schema, but they are short and earn most of their space.

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 two-parameter bulk mutation with an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to obtain the tag_id, the non-empty constraint, and the additive side effect. Only the practical batch limits and duplicate-tag behavior are missing, which are minor gaps.

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 carry the parameter burden and largely does: tag_id is identified as a tag UUID with its source (list_tags or create_tag), and asset_ids is identified as asset UUIDs with a non-empty constraint. It does not clarify expected formats or any limit on batch size.

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?

"Apply a tag to multiple assets at once" gives a specific verb (apply/tag), resource (assets) and batch scope, which cleanly separates it from untag_assets and update_tag. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 states the use case (bulk-categorizing photos, e.g. vacation photos) and points the agent to list_tags or create_tag to obtain a tag_id, which is genuinely actionable guidance. It does not say when not to use this tool (e.g. single-asset tagging) or how it relates to untag_assets, so no exclusions are covered.

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