Create a tag, correspondent or type

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds relevant domain context: matching algorithm values, storage path template requirements, and custom field data types. It does not disclose return values, validation behavior, or permission needs, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise type-specific notes. It loses a point because the full matching algorithm list largely duplicates the schema's existing description, and the title's 'type' is slightly ambiguous compared to the fuller description.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters and several type-specific constraints, the description supplies the important cross-cutting requirements: storage paths need a path template and custom fields need a data_type. Combined with the rich schema containing per-parameter descriptions and enums, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the matching algorithm enum and data_type values that are already in the schema, while adding only a storage path template example. This adds slight value but does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and enumerates the exact resources: tag, correspondent, document type, storage path, or custom field. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like paperless_update_object, paperless_delete_objects, and paperless_list_objects, even without explicit cross-references.

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 the usage case by saying 'Create a tag...' and adds helpful type-specific conditions, such as storage paths needing a `path` and custom fields needing `data_type`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives like paperless_update_object for modifications, leaving some routing to inference.

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