update_tag

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action: it does not disclose that only provided fields are updated (partial update), any required permissions, or the effect on unmentioned properties. With annotations covering idempotency, the description still fails to provide additional behavioral transparency expected of an update tool.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and clear.

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?

With six parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and only an idempotentHint annotation, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell which properties are updatable, whether updates are partial or full, or any validation rules. The description covers only the basic intent, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 17% (only tagId has a description), and the description itself does not elaborate on any parameters. It only implies the need for an existing tag, which hints at tagId being required. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the other fields (name, archived, text_color, description, background_color) or their constraints, but it does not.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing tag', distinguishing it from create_tag (creates a new tag), delete_tag (removes a tag), and get_single_tag (retrieves a tag). It is specific about the action and target, though it does not explicitly list which properties can be updated, leaving that to the schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies you use it when you need to modify an existing tag, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for creation or deletion) or reference any sibling tools. There is no exclusionary context provided.

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