add_card_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key side effect: the tag is created if it doesn't exist. This goes beyond the schema, which only mentions the tag name. However, it does not elaborate on idempotency or permissions, but for a simple mutation it is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and the side effect efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't mention error cases or return values, but those are not essential given the simplicity. The description covers the essential behaviors without missing critical information.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text ('Tag name (created if it doesn't exist yet)' and 'Card ID'). The description adds little beyond the schema, mostly restating the tag creation aspect. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Attach a tag') and resource ('to a card'), and clarifies the creation behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_card_tag and list_card_tags. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool (attaching a tag to a card) but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as remove_card_tag or list_card_tags. There are no exclusions, and the name and action make the usage scenario self-evident, so a 4 is appropriate.

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