Create Tag

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the workspace-level scoping and the fact that no document attachment occurs, which is useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations and provides modest additional context beyond structured data.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clarifying contrast. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 create tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key distinction from related tools. The only minor gap is lack of explicit duplicate-handling behavior, but this is not essential given the annotation 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 clear descriptions for both 'tag' and 'workspaceId'. The description's phrase 'workspace-level tag entry' reinforces the tag parameter's role but adds minimal new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a workspace-level tag entry'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool add_tag_to_doc. It explains what the operation does not do, removing ambiguity.

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 explicitly directs users to add_tag_to_doc when attaching a tag to a document, providing a clear alternative and a when-not-to-use case. It does not explicitly state all positive use cases, but 'for future reuse' and the schema's workspaceId hint convey the intended context.

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