update_taxonomy_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'update' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on related entities like faces or tags. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple update action, though it lacks some detail.

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, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error cases, or required context (e.g., whether the tag must already exist in the specified taxonomy). The agent is left with insufficient information to predict outcomes.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter insights. The schema's descriptions for id and taxonomy_id are generic ('ID of the resource'), while name and parent_id have no descriptions at all. The tool description does not compensate for this gap.

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 'Update a tag inside a taxonomy' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (tag within a taxonomy), providing a specific scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_tag and update_taxonomy by the 'inside a taxonomy' qualifier, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as update_tag or create_taxonomy_tag. There are no contextual cues, exclusions, or examples to help the agent decide.

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