put-models-tags-by-model-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add/delete tags' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions beyond what's in the schema, or what happens when both 'add' and 'delete' arrays are provided. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action statement.

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 concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core action and target. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior with partial parameters, error conditions, return values, or how it fits within the broader tag management system. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'modelId' and 'strict' have descriptions). The description mentions 'tags' which relates to the 'add' and 'delete' parameters, providing some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'add' and 'delete' arrays, tag format requirements, or constraints on tag values, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add/delete tags') and target resource ('for the given modelId'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'put-assets-tags-by-asset-id' or explain how it differs from other tag-related operations in the system.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that manipulate tags (like 'put-assets-tags-by-asset-id'), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparison to help an agent choose appropriately.

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