update_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 discloses the admin role requirement, which is a meaningful authorization constraint. However, it does not explain the update semantics (e.g., whether it replaces all fields, partial updates allowed), potential errors, or return behavior. Given the lack of annotations, a score of 3 reflects that some key behavior is covered but not exhaustively.

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, direct sentence that communicates the core action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite thin. It provides the admin requirement but omits important context like what the tool returns, how it handles non-existent tags, and whether it is a full or partial update. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool behavior is underspecified, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all four parameters. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters. The description mentions 'existing tag' which implies slug is a key identifier, but the schema already clarifies that.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing tag'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag or delete_tag. While it doesn't enumerate which fields can be updated, the name and schema make the purpose unambiguous. It is specific and concise.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires admin role'), which gives useful context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. The usage context is implied by the operation type, but no direct guidance on when to choose this over create_tag or delete_tag is provided.

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