Update a tag, correspondent or type

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety behavior. It adds a useful behavioral guarantee: 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' clarifying that this is a partial update rather than full replacement. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and resource types; the second states the key behavioral caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter object with no output schema, the description gives a workable overview but omits edge-case guidance such as uniqueness constraints, error behavior for nonexistent IDs, or explicit direction to use paperless_update_document for document fields. It is complete enough for common calls but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already describes several parameters (type, path, colour, extra_data, is_inbox_tag, matching_algorithm), giving moderate coverage. The description adds general partial-update semantics but doesn't clarify parameters like name, match, owner_id, or is_insensitive beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but not fully compensatory.

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 uses specific verbs ('Rename or reconfigure') and names the exact resources (tag, correspondent, document type, storage path, custom field), distinguishing it clearly from document-level tools like paperless_update_document and from create/delete object tools.

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 phrase 'existing' implies this tool is for modifying already-created objects rather than creating or deleting them, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over paperless_update_document, paperless_create_object, or paperless_delete_objects. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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