update_tag

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It discloses mutation (rename/recolor) and account_id auto-resolution, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid tag_id), side effects, or permission requirements. The color enumeration list is helpful but not exhaustive for behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose in a single sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every line adds value with no redundancy.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics adequately. It could mention return behavior or error states, but the output schema likely handles the return. Overall sufficient for a simple update tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: clarifies tag_id as numeric (schema says string), notes account_id auto-resolves, describes name as new display name, and lists allowed colors. This compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rename or recolor a tag.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from related tools like create_tag (new tag), delete_tag (remove tag), get_tag (retrieve), and add_call_tags (associating 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 implies use for updating an existing tag's properties but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_tag for new tags or delete_tag for removal. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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