changedetection_update_tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description reinforces the dry-run/confirm behavior, but it does not specify whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared — critical for a PUT-style mutation — and adds little beyond what the confirm parameter's own schema text already says.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and nothing is padded. The literal HTTP route is arguably an implementation detail rather than agent-facing information, but it costs only a few words.

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 exposing 57 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is far too thin; it never explains partial-update semantics, the deprecated `tag` field versus `tags`, or what the dry-run returns. The annotations cover the safety hint but cannot carry the semantic load here.

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 57 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description contributes essentially zero parameter semantics beyond the {uuid} path placeholder already marked required in the schema. The many watch-like fields (browser_steps, processor, notification_urls) are left entirely for the agent to infer.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update a tag") and includes the REST route, so an agent can distinguish it from create_tag, delete_tag, and get_tag without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or clarifying what aspects of a tag this modifies.

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?

"Omit confirm for a dry-run" gives usable invocation guidance for the safety-critical flag, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over set_tag_muted or update_watch, nor any statement about prerequisites such as the tag existing.

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