add_tag

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

Annotations already indicate this is a modifying/destructive operation, and the description reinforces this with '[MODIFIES CONFIG]'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the tag is staged in candidate config and not active until commit, which is important for an agent planning next steps.

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 compact, front-loaded with the operational modifier, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. The commit requirement is delivered efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple create operation with well-documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the important behavioral aspect (candidate config staging and commit requirement). Minor gaps such as duplicate-name behavior or response details are not critical enough to reduce the score further.

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% and every parameter is clearly documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds general context about tags being applicable to rules and objects, but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with an explicit 'Creates a tag object' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes add_tag from get_tags and delete_tag, and the tag application context further clarifies what the object is for.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when a new tag is needed—and provides the key operational context that the change is staged in candidate config and requires a commit to activate. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools there is no other tag-creation tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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