create_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions default behavior for color and account_id auto-resolution but omits side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), required permissions, error states, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but behavioral disclosure remains insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear Args list. However, listing all 10 colors explicitly could be simplified (e.g., referencing the schema or a reference link). Still, it remains relatively concise and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information on idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether creation fails if a tag with the same name exists. The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, so more context would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains 'name' as display name, 'company_id' as required and per-company scope, 'account_id' as optional auto-resolve, and 'color' with explicit list of valid values and default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Create a new tag scoped to one company,' which clearly specifies the action (create), resource (tag), and scope (per company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tag, update_tag, or list_tags.

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 explains that tags are per-company and account_id auto-resolves, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions to avoid. Sibling context implies creation, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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