misp_tag_event

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

The description discloses the destructive nature of removal and the required confirmation step, which is beyond the schema annotations (none provided). It adds context about tag naming conventions but could mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or side effects.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose with examples, second provides critical usage caveat. No filler, front-loaded.

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 read/write tool with no output schema, the description covers both add and remove operations, handles destructive operations, and explains confirm. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 description adds meaning to parameters by showing tag examples and explaining the confirm parameter's behavior (required for removal, ignored for addition). Schema coverage is 100%, so this is additive.

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 adds or removes tags from MISP events, with examples like TLP and MITRE ATT&CK. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle attributes or other entities.

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?

It explicitly mentions that removing a tag is destructive and requires confirm:true or an environment variable, providing clear guidance for safe use. However, it does not mention when to use alternative tag-related tools like misp_search_by_tag.

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