Delete repository tag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the clarification that releases are not deleted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether the tag deletion is permanent, if it affects protected tags, or if any confirmation is required beyond the acknowledge parameter. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a critical clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like protected tags or the impact on releases (though it does mention releases). The destructive nature is covered by annotations, but the description could mention that the operation is irreversible. Overall, it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'acknowledge_tag_deletion' parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, so a baseline 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 clearly states the action (delete a Git tag) and the resource (repository tag), and distinguishes it from deleting a release with the same name. It is specific and unambiguous, though it could be more explicit about the repository context (project) but that is covered by 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?

The description implies usage for deleting tags, and the note about not deleting releases provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_release or when not to use it (e.g., if the tag is protected). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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