Update Tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the critical destructive behavior: the sent tag replaces the stored one and omitted fields are cleared. It also warns agents to fetch before editing, preventing accidental data loss.

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-loaded with the core action, and uses a second sentence only for a high-value warning about replacement behavior. No filler or 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?

For a six-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow and the non-obvious replacement semantics, and an output schema exists. It could add a note about when to use create_tag instead, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents IDs and fingerprint. The description adds important meaning to the 'tag' parameter by explaining it must be the complete resource and that omitted fields will be cleared.

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 a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('a tag'), and a scope ('in a workspace'), so an agent knows what entity is acted on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations like create_tag or revert_tag, though the replace semantics make the update intent clear.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to read the tag with get_tag first and send the whole object back, which is clear context for the update workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond get_tag, so it stops short of a full 5.

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