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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by explaining the actual impact: the tag is no longer selectable yet remains on historical transactions, preserving report integrity. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 zero waste: it states the action, the key behavioral nuance, and the ID source. The most important information (deletion effect) is front-loaded, and every clause 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 tool with a fully covered schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the operational effect (soft delete) and the source of the ID, leaving no critical gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the 'id' property is described as 'Tag ID (see list_tags).' The description repeats this ('Tag IDs come from list_tags') but adds no new semantics beyond reinforcement. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameters.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a tag') and immediately clarifies the behavioral consequence: the tag can no longer be chosen but remains on existing transactions, so past reports are unaffected. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_category, delete_budget) by describing the soft-delete semantics unique to tags.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (to remove a tag from future choices) and explicitly instructs that 'Tag IDs come from list_tags,' providing a prerequisite step. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over create_tag or update_tag.

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