auto_tag_asset

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states a key non-destructive behavior ('Existing auto-tags are preserved; new ones are appended') and mentions the external service (Rekognition/Vision). However, it does not disclose potential costs, asynchronous execution, permission requirements, or error conditions, which are relevant for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Run Rekognition / Vision auto-tagging'). It avoids redundancy and every clause adds value, including the preservation behavior. This is an example of efficient, focused writing.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the essential behavioral nuance (preservation). It could mention side effects like costs or long-running processing, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a generic description ('ID of the resource'). The description adds that the operation targets 'a single asset', clarifying the resource type and reinforcing that 'id' refers to an asset. This is helpful but not a major enhancement over the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('asset') and method ('Rekognition / Vision auto-tagging'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like remove_asset_auto_tag or get_asset_auto_tags. The phrase 'on a single asset' further differentiates it from bulk operations such as bulk_add_tags_to_assets.

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 performing auto-tagging on an asset, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related alternatives like run_asset_ai or add_tags_to_asset. The statement about preserving existing tags gives behavioral context, but there are no explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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