Assign a tag to SketchUp entities by ID or current selection; creates the tag if it does not exist.
Assign a tag to entities (entity_ids or the current selection). A missing tag is created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| entity_ids | No | Ids from tool results (selection_info, create_*...); only valid in the current SketchUp session. Empty = current selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: a missing tag is created on demand (upsert). It does not say whether existing tag assignments on entities are replaced, whether a model must be open, or what is returned.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action and its target come first, the parameter resolution hint second. Every clause carries information.
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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and the create-if-missing side effect, which is adequate. It still leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether existing tags are overwritten, session/model preconditions, and no mention of the result shape.
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 only 50% (entity_ids is documented, tag is not), so the description must compensate — and it does. 'Assign a tag ... A missing tag is created' clarifies that the tag argument is a name string that need not pre-exist, and 'entity_ids or the current selection' reinforces the empty/omitted behavior of the id list.
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 verb (assign) and resource (tag) plus the target (entities), clearly distinguishing it from the read-only sibling list_tags. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or explicitly contrasting with set_material, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated at the top level.
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?
Usage is implied: it explains that targets come from entity_ids or the current selection, which hints at the calling context (including omitting ids to act on the selection). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as list_tags for reading tags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.