add_customer_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates [mutation] but fails to disclose side effects like whether tags are appended or replaced, or any other behavioral traits. The description lacks crucial details for an agent to understand impact.

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 short and to the point, but it mixes languages unnecessarily and lacks structure. It could be improved by front-loading the core action and adding concise details about behavior.

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 tool has 9 parameters, many of which (e.g., query, limit, agent_name) are not explained in the description. No output schema is provided. The description does not specify what the tool returns or how the extra parameters are used, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. While the schema itself is clear, the description does not explain the purpose of parameters like 'query' or 'limit', which seem unrelated to adding a tag.

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 action (add a tag to a customer) and the purpose (classify). The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like auto_tag_customer or update_customer_tags, which could cause ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist) or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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