attach_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver two genuinely useful traits: the 8-tag cap and that changes are not reflected in realtime until the board is refreshed. It does not cover idempotency (behavior if the tag is already attached), what happens when the cap is exceeded, or permission requirements for a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the cardinality constraint in parentheses right after the action and the realtime caveat front-loaded before any agent would act.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the two most agent-relevant behavioral facts (cap and refresh requirement) are present. Remaining gaps are the failure mode at the limit and ID provenance, which are minor for a simple attach operation.

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 0% — all three parameters (board_id, item_id, tag_id) are bare titles. The description clarifies only that the 'item' can be a card or sticky and that a tag_id is involved; it adds no format, ID-source, or scoping guidance for board_id versus item_id, so the coverage gap is unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb (attach) and resource (tag to an item), plus the affected item types (cards/stickies) and a hard limit of 8 tags. This distinguishes it clearly enough from detach_tag and create_tag by name, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the cardinality limit, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over detach_tag/get_item_tags, nor any preconditions (e.g., tag must already exist via create_tag, item must exist on the board).

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