tag_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing the side-effect differences between the modes, especially that replace overwrites existing tags. However, it does not address whether the page must already exist or whether the operation is reversible.

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 two efficient sentences. The main operation is front-loaded and the mode semantics are packed into a compact, unambiguous note.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and mode semantics. It does not include details like error handling or expected preconditions, but those are less critical given the straightforward scope.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the mode parameter and its default, but it does not explicitly define slug as the wiki page identifier or what format tags and slug should take beyond vague hints in the operation statement.

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 operation: add or replace tags on a wiki page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wiki, read_wiki_page, create_note, and update_note_section, none of which directly manage 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?

The description explains the two usage modes and their semantics: add merges with existing tags and is the default, while replace overwrites. This gives an agent enough context to pick the right mode, though it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or how to decide between this and other tools.

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