brain_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavior—that both add and remove can happen in one call—and explains the special nature of tags. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling for invalid IDs, or whether operations are idempotent, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary action, then provides essential context about tags and the combined add/remove capability, with no filler or 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?

The description covers the core workflow: attaching/removing tags, sourcing tag IDs, and creating tags. However, it omits details about the required thoughtId parameter (e.g., where to get it), how to handle cases where both add and remove are empty, and any return behavior. These gaps make it incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 75% (add, remove, brainId have descriptions; thoughtId does not). The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that tags are separate thoughts and that identifiers come from brain_list_types_and_tags, enriching the 'add' and 'remove' parameter meanings. However, thoughtId remains undocumented in both schema and description, preventing a higher score.

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 'attaches and removes a thought's tags', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that tags are special thoughts and directing users to brain_list_types_and_tags for identifiers and brain_create_thought for creating tags, which clarifies its unique role.

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?

Provides clear usage context by explaining the prerequisite steps: obtaining tag identifiers from brain_list_types_and_tags and creating new tags via brain_create_thought. It also notes that a single call can both add and remove, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like brain_update_thought, so it lacks exclusions.

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