asana_delete_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only that a tag is deleted, but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, whether it cascades to tasks, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation, this is a minimal disclosure (score 2).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is so minimal that it fails to provide necessary context for a destructive tool. Conciseness is not the issue; the content is under-specified. A score of 3 reflects that it is structurally clean but substantively thin.

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?

Given that this is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide at least basic behavioral context (e.g., permanence, permissions). It instead offers only a tautological restatement. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call the tool safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'tag_gid', which already documents it as the globally unique identifier. The description adds no additional meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 'Delete a tag' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'asana_delete_tag', adding no new information. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling delete operations such as asana_delete_task or asana_delete_project_status. This matches the rubric's definition of tautology (score 2).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is no implied usage context beyond the tool name itself. This is 'no guidance' (score 2).

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