locations_delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description only repeats the destructive nature. It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether associated records are affected), reversibility, or idempotency behavior beyond what annotations imply. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specified. It conveys no structure or key details, making it an ineffective summary. Conciseness without substance is not valuable; it fails to inform the agent about any operational nuances.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits effects on related data, error behavior, and any caveats. The agent has no information beyond the annotation that it is destructive, which is insufficient for safe 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%, so both parameters (tagId and locationId) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning about parameter usage, defaults, or relationships, so a 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 'Delete tag' is a tautology of the tool name and lacks specificity about what kind of tag is being deleted. It does not mention location tags, although the tool name includes 'locations'. This makes it ambiguous and fails to clarify the exact scope of the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The description offers no help in deciding whether to use this delete operation versus any other delete or update tool for tags.

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