Assign or remove a tag on objects

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it warns that the console answers OK to an unknown tag and changes nothing, that ambiguous names are refused, that verify defaults to true with read-back, and that protect sets Kill Instant/Kill Delayed flags. It also discloses batch semantics — items run in order, nothing is retried, an unknown outcome halts the rest, and one line is returned per item.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and nearly every sentence carries actionable information, but the whole definition is one dense run-on paragraph that mixes purpose, tag resolution, target syntax, protect semantics, version requirements and batch rules. Bullets or sentence breaks would make the same content easier to scan without cutting anything.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every parameter, the batch/single duality, per-item outcomes, and the read-back behavior that stands in for a return-value contract. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: concrete target formats ('Sequence 950 Thru 952', 'Macro 3.1', 'Sequence 5 Cue 2' landing on Part 0), what data_pool addresses, and the default-inheritance rule for batch items ('the other arguments are defaults for every item'). These are semantics the schema alone would not convey.

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 precise verb+resource pair ('Assign a tag to objects, or remove it (off: true)') and even maps it to the console command 'Assign [Off] Tag n At <objects>'. The constraint that the tag 'must exist' implicitly separates it from tag-creating siblings like gma3_store_tag, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use context (target reference syntax with examples, batch form for multiple objects) and an explicit when-not ('Fixtures cannot carry tags'). It stops short of pointing at alternatives such as gma3_store_tag or gma3_configure_tag when a tag does not yet exist, which is the one routing decision an agent would still have to make on its own.

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