Update tag

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds only the HTTP endpoint (PATCH /v2/tags/{id}), which hints at partial update semantics, but it does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or the return value. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short but contains redundancy: 'Update tag.' and 'Updates an existing tag.' say nearly the same thing. The phrase 'Level API endpoint' is cryptic and may confuse rather than help, detracting from the otherwise minimal structure.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description is passable but thin. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a partial update (PATCH) or that only the 'name' field can be changed, which would be valuable context. Missing an explanation of the endpoint's 'Level' qualifier adds ambiguity.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'name', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, such as noting that 'name' is optional for partial updates.

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 states 'Updates an existing tag,' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (tag), distinguishing it from create or delete operations. However, it doesn't name the specific updatable field (name) beyond what the schema provides, and the first sentence simply mirrors the tool title.

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 like createTag or deleteTag. It does not mention that this should be used only for existing tags or that to change a tag's name you use this tool. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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