ghost_create_tag

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 does not mention side effects, idempotency, validation rules (e.g., duplicate name handling), permissions, or response format. The '#internal' note is a naming constraint already present in the schema, so it adds little beyond what structured data provides.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is extremely concise without redundant phrasing, earning its place by stating the core purpose efficiently.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the meaning or implications of internal tags beyond the '#', lacks any mention of required fields (name), and provides no insight into expected responses or error conditions. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented there. The description does not add any meaning about parameters beyond the schema; it merely repeats the '#internal' hint already in the name parameter's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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?

States a specific operation ('Create a new tag') with a clear resource and an added nuance about public vs internal tags starting with '#'. This is not a tautology and distinguishes from update/get/delete siblings by using the verb 'create'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghost_update_tag or ghost_list_tags. It only says what it does, not when to invoke it or any exclusions. The internal/public distinction is mentioned but not elaborated as a decision point.

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