Create Tag

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description usefully adds the 'registry entry only, no attachment' scope. However it never says what happens if the tag already exists — a critical behavior for a create tool flagged as non-idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action first, then the disambiguation. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter create tool the only real missing piece is duplicate-tag handling, which keeps it just below full completeness.

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 both parameters (tag, workspaceId) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'workspace-level' phrasing adds marginal context about the workspaceId, but nothing about format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a workspace-level tag entry') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling add_tag_to_doc, which is exactly the confusion an agent could have. No ambiguity about what gets created.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not ('This does not attach the tag to a document') and names the alternative tool to use instead. This is the strongest possible routing guidance with no inference needed.

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