tag_search_results

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

Discloses side effects (additive, idempotent tagging), that files themselves are not modified beyond tag links, per-file failure isolation, and absence of authentication or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description fully carries this burden.

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 (~100 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then side effects, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: operation, side effects, parameter roles, usage precautions, error handling, and return fields (despite no output schema). Complete for a tool that combines search and tagging.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of parameters in context (e.g., query is FTS, tags filter requires all matches, add_tags are applied to all matches). It clarifies interplay beyond schema definitions.

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 purpose: 'Bulk-tag — run an FTS `search` and append `add_tags` to every matching file in one call.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' and 'add_tags' by combining both actions.

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?

Explicitly advises to run `search` first to verify matches because there is no dry-run flag. Also clarifies that the `tags[]` filter scopes the search, not the tags added. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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