create-tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the default-color fallback behavior, the hex color format constraint, the fact that identical group prefixes auto-group, and the exact response shape ({id}). That is behavioral context the agent could not get from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement and organized under bold headings, so scanning is cheap. The examples section partially duplicates the JSON already given inline under Tag Types and the schema, which is mild redundancy but not damaging.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both input modes, color constraints, the default-color behavior, the return value, and the natural next step (update-tag-group). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: the grouping side effect of the 'groupName:tagName' prefix and the concrete color-format rules with worked examples. Only 'projectId' gets no extra explanation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Create a new tag in a Dooray project') and immediately disambiguates the two modes of the operation (individual vs. group tag). An agent can distinguish this from get-tag, get-tag-list, and update-tag-group 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?

Explains the two usage modes clearly: plain 'tagName' for standalone tags, 'groupName:tagName' when the tag should be grouped, and points to update-tag-group for configuring group behavior afterward. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when *not* to create a tag (e.g., duplicate handling), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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