attach-tags

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention one side effect—'Tags that don't exist yet are created'—but omits other important behaviors such as whether existing tags are appended or replaced, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero redundant words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple with 3 well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core function and tag creation side effect, yet it does not explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., target must exist). This leaves some gaps in the overall context, though it is adequate for basic use.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including the note about automatic tag creation. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Attach tags') and explicitly lists the resource types (matter, contact, company, task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach-tags and list-tags, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Attach tags to...') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., detach-tags for removal). It offers no exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools, so usage context is only inferred.

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