Create a tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Changes account configuration', which vaguely signals a state mutation but does not disclose the side effects, the confirm requirement for account-affecting actions, or any auth/rate-limit 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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding, which is structurally sound. The second sentence is of questionable value, since it repeats the implication of the non-read-only annotation without adding precision.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested payload object, and mutually exclusive input modes (payload vs. payload_file vs. body flags), the description is far too thin. With no output schema, it also does not tell the agent anything about the result, and it omits the single-vs-bulk routing that the sibling set makes necessary.

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 80%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload and payload_file well. The description adds nothing about parameters, leaving the baseline 3 appropriate; notably it never mentions the 'name' field even though it is the payload's required key.

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 and resource ('Create a tag'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling 'bulk_create_tags', which shares the same resource and a similar action.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this for a single tag versus 'bulk_create_tags' for many, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. 'Changes account configuration' is not usage guidance, it is a vague side-effect note.

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