Add or remove tags on a running deployment

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: tags are labels only and invisible to the game server, and the 'edgegap-mcp' tag is protected because cleanup depends on it. Also discloses the return value (current tags), which the annotations cannot.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by intent, then caveats, then return value. Nothing is redundant with the schema text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explicitly states the return value (the tags now on the deployment). Combined with annotation coverage and full schema descriptions, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents request_id, add, remove and dry_run in detail. The description still contributes value by framing the deployment as 'one running deployment' and by flagging the protected tag that constrains valid values for the remove parameter.

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 specific verbs (add/remove) plus the exact resource (tags on one running deployment) and gives concrete intent examples (mark the match served, mark a test done). Clearly distinct from siblings like edgegap_get_deployment or edgegap_list_registry_tags.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts — labeling a match or test — and names the downstream consumer, edgegap_list_deployments, that makes tagging worthwhile. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, but the positive routing is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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