create_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 only states 'Create a new tag,' which implies mutation but does not disclose any consequences (e.g., duplicate handling, tagging limits, whether creation is reversible). No information is provided about permissions, side effects, or error behavior, which is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool. No unnecessary details are included, and it is presented in a clear, direct manner. This is an optimal length.

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?

Given the tool is a simple create operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is structurally adequate but incomplete in behavioral context. It lacks any guidance on prerequisites (e.g., do tags need to be pre-defined?), uniqueness constraints, or what the response contains. An agent might be able to call it, but would have to guess at important usage details. The complexity is low, but the lack of behavioral context leaves a gap.

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 compensate. The description says 'a new tag' and the schema only has one parameter named 'tag' (a string). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as whether the tag should be a single word, allow spaces, or follow any format. However, with only one parameter, the schema is still fairly clear that 'tag' is the label for the new tag. The description adds minimal value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('tag'). It is concise and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling creation tools (e.g., create_account, create_budget) beyond the resource type, which is obvious from the name. This earns a 4 rather than 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like list_tags (to check existing tags) or any constraints on tag naming (e.g., unique, format). With many sibling tools, an agent might need to know if tags are globally unique or associated with specific entities, but no such context is provided.

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