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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond that: the tag moves to the bin rather than being permanently lost, and it can be restored. It also surfaces the confirmation and archiving alternatives, which are valuable behavioral details for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action and recovery behavior front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, how to recover, and safer alternatives.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: lookup by id, bin-based recovery, an archiving alternative, and user confirmation. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, 'id', with 0% description coverage, and the description adds only that deletion is 'by id'. It does not specify the id format or where to obtain it, though the single obvious required parameter keeps the gap small.

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 and resource ('Delete a tag') and adds the key lookup field ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_tag, list_tags, and restore_deleted.

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?

Explicitly recommends archiving via update_tag first and asks the agent to confirm with the user before deleting. It also names the recovery path through list_binned and restore_deleted, so the agent knows both alternatives and consequences.

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