create_tag

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behaviors beyond the schema: tag scoping, account_id auto-resolution, and the gray1 color default. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or duplicate/name constraints for the mutation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses an Args block that maps cleanly to all four parameters. The color list is longer but necessary because the schema has no enum values.

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 4-parameter create mutation with no annotations and an output schema, this description is complete: it clarifies required versus auto-resolved fields, the relevant scoping rule, and valid inputs. Nothing the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is left undocumented.

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%, and the description fully compensates: name, company_id, account_id, and color all receive meaningful guidance. The color parameter is especially strong, enumerating the 24 supported color ranges and stating the default.

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 opening line names an exact action and object: 'Create a new tag scoped to one company.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tag tools like list_tags, update_tag, delete_tag, and get_tag without ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context: tags are per-company, company_id is required, and account_id auto-resolves. It does not explicitly route the agent to update_tag/delete_tag when appropriate, but the 'create' framing and per-company scope make the intended use clear.

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