tag_memories

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the mutable nature (add/remove), but fails to disclose the default behavior of the optional action parameter, idempotency, permissions, or consequences for existing tags. Minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and includes a meaningful note about tags being retrieval cues. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the action parameter's default or possible values, nor does it describe return values or effects. However, the core purpose is clear enough for simple tagging use cases.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains 'tags' and 'memories' conceptually, but does not describe the individual parameters, especially the 'action' parameter with its add/remove enum. The agent must infer parameter purpose from the description alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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's function: adding or removing tags on memories in bulk. It also explains that tags are retrieval cues, which distinguishes it from memory retrieval tools like 'search' or 'recall'. The phrase 'in bulk' signals batch operation, adding further specificity.

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 for managing tags as retrieval cues, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'remember' or 'search'. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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