vault_tag

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that content is untouched and that replace=true overwrites existing tags, which clarifies the scope of the mutation beyond the raw annotation flags.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the scope constraint, the use case, and the key parameter behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, with the main purpose front-loaded and no redundant 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete: it states the operation, the target, the non-destructive constraint, the use case, and the replace behavior. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema is expected, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing the target must be an existing Finch Vault entry and by clarifying the replace behavior in plain language, reinforcing the schema's parameter descriptions without contradicting them.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add or replace tags on an existing Finch Vault entry.' It also distinguishes itself from content-modifying tools by stating 'without modifying its content' and clarifies it targets only tags, which separates it from siblings like vault_save.

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?

It provides clear context: this is for organizing entries retroactively on existing entries, not for creating or editing content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'without modifying its content' phrasing implicitly excludes content-editing workflows.

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