tag_object

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: tags are found-or-created, matched by exact name, and existing tags are reused rather than duplicated. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if the object already carries the tag.

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: the action and its create-if-missing behavior are front-loaded, followed by purpose examples and the matching rule. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (attach, create-if-missing, exact matching). It does not state what the call returns or how it behaves if the tag is already attached to the object, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the schema already documents tag, target, object_type, and color (including the default and the 'ignored if the tag already exists' rule). The description's 'exact name' note largely restates the schema's 'found-or-created by exact match', adding little new parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach a Tag to an object) plus the find-or-create behavior. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_tags, add_attribute, or cite_object without opening any 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 conveys what tags are for via examples ('Verified', 'Needs review', 'DNA-confirmed'), which implies the usage context, but it never says when to prefer tag_object over related labeling tools such as add_attribute or cite_object, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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