Tag Elements

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false); the description goes further by disclosing that already-tagged elements are skipped by default, untaggable inputs land in 'skipped', dry_run rolls back, and an unnamed tag type falls back to the default. It omits preconditions such as needing a loaded tag family or permissions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and the exclusivity constraint before edge-case behavior. Density is high but each sentence carries distinct information; the 'Returns created tag IDs in createdElementIds' clause is mildly redundant with the output schema.

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?

With 10 parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the behavioral and semantic glue an agent needs: selection-mode exclusivity, skip/dry_run behavior, and tag-type resolution. The unaddressed leader/orientation/max_elements parameters keep it from being fully 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 description coverage is only 10%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the highest-value parameters: the categories/element_ids mutual exclusivity (not encoded in the schema), tag_type matching rules ('name', 'family', 'Family: Type'), skip_tagged, dry_run, and the plan-view requirement for view. It says nothing about leader, orientation, or max_elements, leaving ~3 parameters unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Tag elements in a view') and names the two selection modes (category names or element IDs), which is precisely what the tool does. No sibling tool in the list performs tagging, so it is inherently distinguishable without explicit sibling naming.

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?

Gives real operating constraints: exactly one of categories/element_ids, room tags require a plan view, and skip_tagged controls re-tagging. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, but no competing tag/annotation tool exists in the sibling set, so the gap is minor.

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