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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds genuine context: the mutation removes only the association while the tag entity persists, which scopes the damage described by destructiveHint. It stops short of saying what happens when the contact lacks that tag.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the scoping fact (the tag survives) is front-loaded where it will be read before the call is made.

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 two-parameter association-removal tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is behavior on a no-op removal, which idempotentHint already signals.

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 50% — id is documented but tag_name is not. The description implies that id identifies the contact and the named tag is what gets detached, which partially compensates. It does not state whether tag_name must match an existing tag exactly or how case/whitespace are handled.

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?

"Takes a tag off a contact" states a specific verb (remove) and resource (tag-contact association), and the second sentence preempts confusion with deleting a tag. It does not name the sibling tag_contact as the inverse operation, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 by the verb rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for detaching an existing tag, and "the tag itself stays" implicitly contrasts with a tag-deletion tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or pointer to tag_contact as the add-side alternative.

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