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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by explaining that removing an absent tag succeeds as a no-op with removed: false, though it does not cover permissions or all success-result behavior.

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 purpose and followed by the key targeting constraint and no-op behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains target selection and no-op behavior. It could optionally state success behavior or permissions, but no essential invocation detail is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents tagId, taskId, and projectId including their mutual exclusivity. The description repeats the mutual-exclusion rule but adds no syntax, format, or selection detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Remove a tag from a task or project." It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like assign_tag, create_tag, and list_tags without needing the 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?

It gives a concrete targeting rule: "Provide either taskId or projectId, not both." That is clear usage guidance, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to assign_tag or say when removal is preferred over alternative tag operations.

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