tag_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation action (assigning tags) but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether re-tagging with the same name is handled gracefully, whether tag_category is used only on new tag creation, or what happens to existing tags. With zero annotation coverage, a mutation tool describing only its action without side effects or behaviors is a significant gap.

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 at one short sentence, which is efficient. However, it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness - it saves words but fails to deliver needed content about usage, behavior, or parameter semantics. A single terse sentence that omits all context is not well-balanced conciseness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a simple but consequential operation (modifying entries by attaching tags). The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to convey behavior around duplicate tags, category handling, or interaction with the untag_entry / list_tags siblings. For a tool that modifies data across 15 distinct entry types, the minimal description is inadequate.

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 documents all four parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states. The tag_category parameter's role ('新規作成時' = when creating new) is documented in the schema but not elaborated in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage with no additional descriptive value.

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 'エントリにタグを付与' (assign tags to entries) states the verb+resource clearly but is terse. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like untag_entry, get_entry_tags, create_tag, or list_tags beyond the basic action. The purpose is clear but lacks the specificity to differentiate from related tag-management tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention that tag_name auto-creates tags (though this is in the schema), no indication of relationship to create_tag or untag_entry, and no prerequisites stated. The description provides zero usage context for an agent to decide between this and sibling tag tools.

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