update_tag

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it supports partial updates and lists fields, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second explains the usage and lists fields. No unnecessary words.

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's simplicity and the rich schema (100% parameter coverage, no output schema needed), the description covers the essential details. It explains the partial update behavior and the fields. No missing critical information, though it omits any mention of return values or error states.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by emphasizing the partial update pattern ('only send the fields you want to change'), which is not explicitly stated in the schema. It also lists the supported fields, reinforcing their meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing tag' with a specific verb (Update) and resource (tag). It lists the modifiable fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag or delete_tag.

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 clear guidance on usage: 'Only send the fields you want to change.' It implies a partial update pattern but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, given sibling tools, it's the only update tool for tags.

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