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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating a destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation by stating that the tag is also removed from all files that have it. This is a critical side effect an agent must know before invoking, and it is not captured in the annotations alone.

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 only two sentences, with the core action stated first and the side effect immediately after. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 tool is a simple destructive action with a single parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the essential behavioral side effect and the annotation covers destructiveness. It could mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the tag does not exist) but that is not critical for selection. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter tag_id with a clear description ('The tag ID to delete'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The description adds no extra meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a tag.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'tag' are specific. The added side effect, 'remove the tag from all files that have it', distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_tag_from_file, which removes only from one file. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting the global side effect, which contrasts with remove_tag_from_file for partial removal. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you want to permanently delete the tag' or mention alternative tools. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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