edit_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that partial updates are allowed ('any combination') and that status accepts only active/onHold/dropped, which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior for nonexistent tags, consequences of setting status to 'dropped', or any permissions/side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then concisely explains the parameters and their constraints. Every clause serves a purpose.

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 three-parameter edit operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool does, what input to provide, and the partial-update semantics. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for a simple tag edit 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that id refers to an existing tag, name means rename, status has three specific allowed values, and 'any combination' indicates both fields are optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and enums.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing OmniFocus tag'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and get_tag. It also enumerates the editable fields, making the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'Edit an existing OmniFocus tag' implies this tool is for modifying already-created tags rather than creating or deleting them, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicitly stated.

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