set-experiment-tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Set a tag' without revealing whether existing tags are overwritten, if tags are unique per experiment, or any side effects. This lack of detail is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return behavior (e.g., success/failure, void). Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params), it should at least indicate expected outcomes. The lack of output schema and behavioral details makes it incomplete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters (experimentId, key, value) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Set a tag', so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage but provides no extra value.

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 'Set a tag on an experiment' clearly identifies the action (set) and resource (experiment tag), distinguishing it from sibling tools for other resources (e.g., set-run-tag, set-model-version-tag) or deletion (delete-experiment-tag).

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 usage for setting tags on experiments via the resource name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete-experiment-tag or other set-tag tools. No prerequisites or context are stated.

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