wb_tag_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the destructive action ('Delete') and reveals a key failure mode: deletion fails while the tag is linked, requiring an unlink step. It does not mention irreversibility or auth requirements, but for a one-parameter delete tool the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the critical prerequisite. The Russian parenthetical is slightly redundant but not harmful. Overall it is lean and effective, with no repetition of schema fields.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the failure condition, and the required unlink step. It does not explain return values or error response shape, but the most important edge case is explicitly addressed, which is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.

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. 'Delete a tag' implicitly maps tag_id to the target tag, and the linked-goods caveat adds conditional behavior tied to that tag. However, the description never explicitly explains that tag_id is the tag identifier or how to obtain it, leaving some burden on the parameter name and context.

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 and resource: 'Delete a tag.' The failure condition adds precision and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_tag_create, wb_tag_update, and wb_tag_link. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when the call will fail (if the tag is still linked to goods) and what to do instead: unlink via wb_tag_link first. This is direct when-to-use and alternative-tool guidance, which is exactly what agents need for correct invocation.

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