manage_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior: delete without force may fail if the tag is in use, and update allows changing name, description, or archived status. It also clarifies that name is required for create and id for update/delete. Missing details like permission requirements or error handling keep it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each line serves a distinct role: the first states the purpose, then each action is described with its required parameters and optional specifics. No redundancy or filler; it reads as a precise usage manual.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: all three actions, required vs optional fields, and the special force behavior. It lacks only trivial details like return format, which are not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The coverage is fully sufficient.

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?

The schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to specific action contexts (e.g., 'name required for create', 'id required for update/delete', 'force=true only relevant to delete'), which is not fully evident from the schema alone. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 opens with 'Create, update, or delete a Lunch Money tag' – a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tags by focusing on mutations (create/update/delete) and enumerates the three actions explicitly.

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 provides action-specific guidance (e.g., 'Provide name (required) for create', 'Provide id for update/delete', 'Use force=true to delete even if used on transactions'), making it clear when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as pointing to list_tags for read-only needs, so it misses the top tier.

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