update_space_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (update) and return (updated tag), but lacks information on authorization, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The identification method is mentioned, which adds some transparency.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity and the rich schema, the description is sufficient. It mentions the return value despite no output schema. It could be more explicit about optional parameters, but overall it provides adequate context.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantic context by explaining that tag_name is the current name and name can be a new name, clarifying the relationship between these two parameters. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 tool updates an existing Space tag, with options to rename and/or change colors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_space_tag and delete_space_tag by specifying 'update an existing' and using 'identify by its current name'.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating to identify the tag by its current name, implying the need for space_id and tag_name. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context from sibling tools and the verb 'update' makes the intended scenario clear.

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