update_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. It lacks critical context for a write operation, leaving the agent with minimal safety or operational guidance.

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 four words, front-loading the core action ('Update a tag') with no wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and identifier method. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 2 required parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'by ID', which hints at the 'tag_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'name' parameter or add any semantic context (e.g., what the name represents, format constraints, or that both parameters are required). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update a tag by ID' clearly states the action (update) and target resource (tag), with the 'by ID' specifying the identifier method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'delete_tag' by indicating modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated beyond what's implied by the schema.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tag ID), contrast with 'create_tag' for new tags, or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate versus deleting and recreating. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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