Tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers action names but omits important details for a mutation-capable tool: whether modifications are reversible, required permissions, effects on existing tags, or any side effects. The description is basically a list of operations with no additional behavioral context.

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 compact: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted action list. Every line adds useful information, and the structure lets an agent quickly parse the four operations.

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?

The description covers all four actions and their high-level purpose, and the output schema exists so return values need not be described. It does not explain the tag-matching algorithm or edge cases, but for a tool with this schema richness the description is largely complete.

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 100%, with each parameter including usage notes (e.g., 'required for add, remove'). The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately documents semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 manages notebook tags and finds relevant notebooks via tag matching, listing four explicit actions. It identifies the resource (notebook tags) and specific actions, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'label'.

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?

Each action includes a short purpose ('add tags ... for smart selection', 'find notebooks relevant to a query using tag matching'), giving clear context for when to use each operation. However, it does not discuss exclusions or alternatives.

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