add_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new tag' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it modifies existing files, error conditions (e.g., duplicate tag names), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that states the core purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. No unnecessary details or verbose explanations are included.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks context about how the tool integrates with the broader system (e.g., task organization workflow).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose of tag creation. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., copyFromCurrent vs copyFromTag) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new tag') with the purpose 'for organizing tasks in different contexts'. It distinguishes this from other tag-related tools like copy_tag, delete_tag, rename_tag, and list_tags by specifying creation rather than manipulation or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond the tag domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_tag (which might create a tag with copied tasks) or initialize_project (which might set up project structure). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing project or tasks file, or when this tool is appropriate versus other tag management operations.

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