Update tag

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

The annotations only provide generic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds a concrete behavioral guarantee: omitted fields keep their current value and only passed fields are changed. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it does not cover permissions requirements or validation failures.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second states the key operational nuance. Every word earns its place, and the most important behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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?

Given a 10-parameter update tool with nested objects, the description plus a well-described schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It does not mention response format or nested permission overwrite behavior, but no output schema exists and the schema documents permission semantics itself.

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 already covers about 80% of the 10 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that all optional parameters follow partial-update semantics, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly names the resource ('tag') and the action ('partially update'), and the second sentence explains the exact update semantics. This unmistakably distinguishes it from create_tag, delete_tag, and other update_* siblings without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: modify an existing tag while preserving unspecified fields. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as using create_tag for new tags or delete_tag for removal.

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