Delete Tag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds critical behavior: it removes the tag from all documents referencing it, and explains how ambiguous names are handled. This goes beyond annotations but could still note if the operation is reversible or if confirmation is needed.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The key action and consequences are front-loaded. Every sentence adds valuable information without waste.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the deletion behavior, side effects, and parameter ambiguity. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though mentioning the return type (e.g., success/failure) would be ideal.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'tag' parameter can be an id or name, and that ambiguous names cause rejection with candidate ids. This clarifies the parameter's flexibility and error handling.

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 explicitly states the action (delete), the resource (workspace-level tag), and the scope (remove from every document referencing it). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_tag_from_doc or create_tag.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for permanent deletion of a tag, but lacks a direct comparison with siblings like remove_tag_from_doc. The mention of ambiguous name rejection is helpful but not a usage guideline.

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