update_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool updates a tag. It does not disclose whether the update is partial (PATCH-style) or full replacement, potential side effects, permission requirements, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 41 parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's scope without listing all 41 parameters. The parenthetical list of field categories is concise and informative. It loses a point for using the somewhat jargonistic 'enrichment field' without definition, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (41 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides an overview but omits critical context like return values, partial update behavior, and the significance of admin-only fields (though some are noted in the schema). The description does not equip an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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 44%, so the description needs to compensate. It does provide high-level semantic grouping ('event fields', 'artwork fields', 'external-system links', 'synonym graph') that helps the agent understand the parameter categories. However, it does not explain individual parameter semantics or mention the required 'id' parameter, leaving many parameters underspecified.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a tag'. It goes beyond a simple restatement by enumerating the categories of enrichment fields it handles, which helps distinguish it from create/delete/merge operations on tags. The inclusion of specific field categories (description, sub_type, link, event fields, artwork fields, external-system links, synonym graph) makes the purpose concrete and scoped.

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 updating existing tags but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like bulk_update_tags or merge_tags. It does not state exclusions or mention scenarios where other tools are more appropriate. The 'accepts every enrichment field' phrase suggests comprehensiveness but doesn't offer clear decision criteria.

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