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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further by explaining exactly what gets destroyed: the tag is removed from every post, every asset, and the global registry. It also implies the operation is not scoped to a single item, which is critical behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The critical scoping information ('EVERYWHERE') is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is compactly delivered. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, the global scope, and when to use a sibling tool instead. The schema fully documents the only parameter, so there are no ambiguous fields or missing invocation details.

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 single parameter 'tag' has a schema description that covers 100% of its meaning: 'Tag to delete (as shown by list_tags)'. The main description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the schema carries the weight. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a tag'), and a precise scope ('EVERYWHERE... every post and asset of the organization and from the global registry'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tag_posts and update_asset by emphasizing the global removal scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the alternatives: 'Use tag_posts / update_asset with remove_tags to untag individual items instead.' This provides clear routing guidance between delete_tag and the less destructive sibling operations.

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