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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a soft delete with 30-day retention before permanent removal, and attached prompts are unaffected. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether restoration is possible during the retention window.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect on prompts, then the lifecycle. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: what is removed, what is not, and the retention period. Minor gaps remain around permissions and failure behavior for an already-deleted id, though idempotentHint partially covers the latter.

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% for the single parameter (tag_id, documented as the numeric id), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 immediately clarifies the effect on attached prompts, which separates it from the sibling detach-tag-from-prompt-tool. An agent can distinguish this from update-tag-tool and get-tag-tool without opening any schema.

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 name and the description of the delete lifecycle, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as detach-tag-from-prompt-tool (for removing a tag from a prompt only) or update-tag-tool. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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