assign_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the role requirement (collaborator/admin), which is helpful for authorization. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether re-assigning an existing tag overwrites or errors), return behavior, or whether the tag must already exist. This is a moderate gap 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 a single, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the action and role requirement. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action and role requirement, and the schema explains parameters. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether the tag already being assigned is an error or idempotent, but this is not a critical omission for a basic assign operation.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (slug and post_number) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Assign a tag to a post.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like unassign_tag. The parenthetical role requirement adds useful context 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 implicitly sets usage context by naming the action and the required role, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use unassign_tag to remove a tag'). The role requirement is a clear prerequisite, and sibling tool names provide enough context for a knowledgeable agent.

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