update_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effect on all assets using the tag, the API limitation about renaming, the error behavior for `name`, and the return value. This goes well beyond the input schema.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, side effect, limitation, workaround, and per-argument semantics are all covered in a compact format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple update operation, the description covers the action, side effects, unsupported parameters, workaround, and return format. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe the response object in more detail.

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%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: `tag_id` as the UUID, `name` as unsupported with a concrete consequence, and `color` with a hex format example and 'omit to keep current'. This compensates completely for the bare schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Update a tag's color'), immediately distinguishing it from create_tag, delete_tag, and tag_assets. It also clarifies the tool's scope boundary by explicitly noting that renaming is not supported.

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 routes rename workflows to create_tag, tag_assets, and delete_tag, and warns that passing `name` returns an error explaining the workaround. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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