htb_hosts_retag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blast radius ('every entry') and that tags are overwritten rather than merged, which is the key risk. It does not say whether manually curated tags are lost, whether the change is reversible, or whether it requires a populated host list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the motivating case in parentheses. Zero filler, nothing to trim.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient, but a bulk mutation with zero annotations and no reversibility warning leaves an agent guessing about side effects. A hint about backing up first (a sibling exists for exactly that) or about failure when a box name is missing would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is global and requires no scoping arguments.

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: 'Recompute every entry's tag from its box name', which is clearly distinct from siblings like htb_hosts_add, htb_hosts_clean and htb_hosts_restore. It doesn't name an adjacent sibling (e.g. htb_hosts_clean) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'fixes bulk tag=imported' implies the triggering scenario, so an agent can infer when this tool is warranted. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that host entries must already exist), and no pointer to alternatives such as htb_hosts_backup before a bulk overwrite.

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