Update a tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing on top: it does not mention that a mutation requires confirm=true (per the schema's own flag), what gets overwritten, or how the deprecated 'tag' field interacts with 'name'. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this earns a low score for adding no context.

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?

One short sentence is certainly concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words yet conveys almost nothing beyond the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with a nested payload object, deprecated fields, and mutually exclusive body-passing options, a single sentence is inadequate. Even accounting for the rich schema and the existence of annotations, the description leaves an agent without the mutation context (confirm requirement, field semantics) that a definition of this complexity should supply.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters (including the deprecated 'tag', the payload/payload_file exclusivity rules, and the confirm flag) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline of 3 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 is essentially a restatement of the title ('Update a tag') with 'in the workspace' appended; it names a verb and resource but provides no scope, no affected fields, and no differentiation from sibling tools like update_folder, update_link, or update_domain. This is close to a tautology rather than a specification of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use update_tag versus create_tag, delete_tag, or list_tags, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the confirm flag. Nothing tells the agent which conditions select this tool over its siblings.

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