attach-tag

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

The description adds two key behavioral traits beyond annotations: idempotency (matching the idempotentHint) and the v2-only restriction with a 501 error on v1. These details help an agent understand edge cases and API version behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds idempotency and version constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavior (attach, idempotent, v2-only) without needing an output schema. It could briefly mention that the tag must already exist, but that is implicitly understood from the sibling 'create-tag' 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add any new meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('tag to a resource'), lists the exact resource types (pod, network volume, cluster, serverless endpoint), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detach-tag' and 'create-tag'.

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 clearly states that the tool is idempotent and v2-only, providing usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or recommend alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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