tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It outlines actions and required parameters but does not mention side effects (e.g., consequences of adding duplicate tags), idempotency, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by bullet lists for actions and parameters. It is mostly concise, though some parameter examples could be trimmed without loss of clarity.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers input well but does not explain return values or pagination. It is adequate but leaves some behavioral context unaddressed.

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 0%, but the description adds full meaning for all parameters: action, notebook_id, tags (with comma-separated example), notebook_title, and query (with example). It specifies which parameters are required for which actions, significantly enhancing the schema.

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. It lists specific actions (add, remove, list, select) and differentiates from siblings like notebook_query which are about querying content rather than tags.

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 implies usage via actions but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_query or cross_notebook_query. It lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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