edit_tag

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses none of the key semantics for a mutation: whether unspecified properties are left untouched (partial update), whether renaming affects tasks carrying the tag, what happens to child tags when a parent changes, or whether edits are reversible. Listing the editable fields is scope, not behavior; nothing here warns the agent about side effects of a write.

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 tight sentences with the operation and its field scope front-loaded, then the usage motivation. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

Seven parameters with zero marked required and no output schema means the agent must infer that one of tagId/tagName is mandatory and that tagId/tagName and newParentTagId/newParentTagName are alternative pairs — the description says nothing about this, nor about what a successful edit returns. It is adequate for a simple mutation but leaves the identity requirement entirely to the schema.

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 100%, including the enum values and the 'empty string makes top-level' trick, so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors the same field list without adding syntax or constraints beyond it, and notably never mentions that an identifier (tagId or tagName) must be supplied.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Edit a tag's properties') and enumerates exactly which properties — rename, status, parent, allowsNextAction — so an agent knows this is a tag-only mutation, not a generic item edit. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the very similar 'edit_item' sibling, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

'Use to reactivate dropped tags or reorganize tag hierarchy' gives concrete, actionable contexts for selection rather than a generic 'use this to edit tags'. However it never states when NOT to use it (e.g. moving tasks between tags belongs to edit_item, bulk renaming to batch tools) and names no alternative.

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