tag_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only supplied fields are changed (partial patch), that it returns the updated tag on success, and that it triggers a sync, advising to call 'sync_trigger' afterward. These are important behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly mention any authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the sync. Still, the information is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 concise (7 sentences) and well front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the patch behavior, and the third immediately distinguishes from sibling tools. Examples are placed at the end, which is appropriate. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers the update behavior, the return value, the sync side effect, and prerequisites (get ID from tag_list). No important behavioral aspect is missing. The examples cover two common use cases (name change and status change).

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), providing baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value for several parameters: for 'id', it says 'Get from tag_list'; for 'status', it lists alias mappings (paused → on-hold, etc.); for 'parentId', it explains that passing null promotes to root and to get valid IDs from tag_list. These additions help the agent understand the domain-specific meanings beyond schema constraints.

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 states the tool's action: 'Update mutable fields on an existing tag (partial patch).' It specifies the resource (tag) and the verb (update). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'tag_move' by explicitly stating not to use it for moving a tag to a different parent, and instead recommends 'tag_move'. This provides clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Update mutable fields on an existing tag.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use to move a tag to a different parent; prefer tag_move instead.' Additionally, it mentions the alternative tool by name and instructs the user to get the tag ID from 'tag_list' and to call 'sync_trigger' after the update. Examples further illustrate proper usage.

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