remove_contact_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'Write: changes contact segmentation,' which flags a mutating side effect and its business consequence. However, it does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the tag does not exist, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three short, purposeful segments: what the tool does, where parameters come from, and the side-effect warning. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, parameter provenance, and behavioral impact, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like missing error cases are acceptable for a tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining exactly where to get `user_ns` and `tag_name`, tying each parameter to another tool's output. This adds meaningful provenance beyond the schema, though it does not describe format or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a tag from one contact.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope, and the verb 'remove' distinguishes it from sibling add_contact_tag. The one-contact constraint adds precision beyond just the tool name.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by telling the agent where to source each parameter: `user_ns` from `find_contact` and `tag_name` from `list_tags`. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or mention alternatives such as add_contact_tag, but the usage context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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