create_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool supports a broad enrichment surface, but does not explain conditional behaviors (e.g., event fields require sub_type=event), required permissions, or effects like name uniqueness. This leaves the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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 sentences: a clear imperative purpose followed by a concise list of supported enrichment areas. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is 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 simple create operation, the description is adequate, but this tool has 38 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level overview but does not explain conditional constraints, defaults, or the return value. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently without additional schema inspection.

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 description coverage is only 37%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into categories (description, sub_type, link, event fields, artwork fields, external-system identifiers), which provides some structure. However, it does not explain which specific parameters belong to each group or any conditional relationships, so the agent still has to infer from an under-described 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 opens with 'Create a new tag,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_tag, delete_tag, and get_tag. It also summarizes the supported enrichment surface, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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 purpose 'Create a new tag' implies when to use the tool, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., create_taxonomy_tag for taxonomy-specific tags). There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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