remove-tag-from-contactsRemove a tag from selected contacts in Arsel. This may start active automations that send messages.
Remove a tag from contacts. This can start the organization's active automations, which may send messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The tag id. | |
| contact_ids | Yes | Contact ids, from list-contacts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: removing a tag can trigger the organization's automations, which may send messages. That consequence is not derivable from annotations or schema and materially affects whether an agent should proceed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the risk. Nothing extraneous.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key missing piece: the automation side effect. It omits whether the operation is reversible or what the response contains, but with no output schema and a low-complexity call this is a minor gap.
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 (id, contact_ids) are already fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to list-contacts. The description adds no syntax, format, or batching detail beyond that, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (tag, on contacts), which is clearly the inverse of the sibling add-tag-to-contacts. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the tool name rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of permissions or conditions. The only context given is a side effect, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.