add_tag

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive mutation (`readOnlyHint: false`, `destructiveHint: false`), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by stating that an existing project tag with the same name is reused rather than duplicated, and it clarifies the valid target structures.

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 tightly front-loaded: the action is stated first, followed by the tag-reuse behavior and target grammar. There is no redundant or filler text, and the target combinations are easy to scan.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 10-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough: it omits the meanings of several optional parameters and does not mention project context or any error/precondition behavior.

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% and there are 10 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It explains the target-related parameters (`clip`, `sequence`, `track`, `item`) and their combinations, but completely omits `icon`, `kind`, `note`, `project`, and `metadata`, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and target resources: tagging clips, sequences, tracks, or shots. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_tag and list_project_tags because it describes adding a tag rather than listing or removing one.

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 defines valid target combinations (`clip` alone, `sequence` alone, `sequence`+`track`, or `sequence`+`track`+`item`), which is useful invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `remove_tag` or `list_project_tags`, nor does it describe prerequisites like needing an open project.

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