remote_block_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that tags are added and that tags can be used for filtering, but does not disclose critical traits such as whether tags are appended or replace existing tags, idempotency, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient transparency for a mutation tool.

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: two short sentences that immediately state the action ('Add tags to a block') and add relevant context (search filtering). No filler or redundant information, and the key verb is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a use case. However, it omits behavioral details (e.g., additive vs. replace semantics, error handling) and lacks any return-value description. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it explains that tags enable filtering, which gives context to the 'tags' parameter, but does not elaborate on blockId or add format/constraint details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add tags') and resource ('a block'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remote_block_untag (which removes tags) and remote_blocks_search (which searches/filters). It also states the organizational purpose.

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 when to use the tool (to organize blocks for filtering/search), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or explain when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that remote_block_untag handles removal, so usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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