octobrowser_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 behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the operation ('update') without detailing side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure 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, concise sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with only two fully described parameters, and no output schema exists, so the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., what happens on success/failure) leaves some gaps, making it a borderline complete description.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (uuid, name) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 an existing tag' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('tag'), clearly identifying its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and get_tags by indicating a mutation of an existing entity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_tag for new tags or delete_tag for removal. It also fails to mention prerequisites like the tag needing to exist or that the uuid parameter must reference an existing tag.

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