annotation.add_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action but does not reveal key behaviors such as whether it overwrites existing tags, if it is idempotent, or if there are side effects like requiring write permissions. Critical behavioral traits like mutability and data persistence are not mentioned, leaving the agent uncertain.

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 extremely short at 6 words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it lacks sufficient detail to meet the tool's complexity (5 params, 4 required), so it under-delivers. Conciseness is good, but the brevity here is more under-specification than clarity. The score reflects that every word is used, but more are needed.

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 has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values (if any), error conditions, or how tags interact with other annotation tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without external documentation. The context signals confirm a high parameter count with zero schema coverage, making the description inadequate.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter has documentation. The description only mentions 'address' implicitly but does not explain the meaning of 'tag_type', 'data', 'icon', or 'session_id'. Without any parameter descriptions in the schema, the description fails to provide the needed meanings, leaving the agent to guess the role of each field.

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 'Add user data tag at address' clearly indicates the tool adds a tag, specifying the verb 'Add', the resource 'user data tag', and the location 'at address'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'annotation.rename_function' or 'annotation.set_comment', which also modify annotations. The description is concise but lacks distinction within the annotation sibling group.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of how 'annotation.get_tags' or 'annotation.rename_function' relate. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, such as whether the user must have a session or if the address must exist. The context signals do not compensate for this lack of guidance.

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