update_tag

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

The description discloses merge semantics (shallow merge, null removes keys, lists replaced whole), concurrent edit handling (fingerprint prevents clobbering), and that changes stay in a workspace draft until published. These details go well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 summary, detailed merge behavior, and args section. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; minor tightening could improve 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need less detail), the description covers merge semantics, error handling, draft workflow, and parameter guidance adequately for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (account_id, container_id, workspace_id, tag_id, changes) with examples and guidance (e.g., 'find it via list_tags'), adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Updates a tag by merging changes into its current configuration.' It identifies the verb (update) and resource (tag), and the merge semantics distinguish it from create_tag (new) and delete_tag (removal).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for modifying an existing tag) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_tag or delete_tag. The context is clear, but explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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