superset_tag_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the API endpoint ('/api/v1/tag/{id} DELETE'), warns that the operation is 'permanent and cannot be undone' (critical for a destructive action), and hints at the return format ('A dictionary with deletion confirmation message'). This covers key behavioral traits like destructiveness and response structure, though it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Delete a tag'), followed by implementation details and warnings, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no redundancy or fluff. The bullet-point style in Args and Returns enhances readability without wasting space.

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 complexity (a destructive delete operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavioral warnings, parameter meaning, and return format. However, it misses contextual elements like authentication requirements or error scenarios, which could be important for a mutation tool in this API context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining 'tag_id: ID of the tag to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic 'Tag Id' title and integer type. This is sufficient for the single parameter, but it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'superset_tag_create', 'superset_tag_get_by_id', and 'superset_tag_list' by focusing on deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'superset_tag_object_remove', which also removes tags but from objects, so it's not fully specific about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tag_id from a list operation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'superset_tag_object_remove' for removing tags from objects. The agent is left without context for tool selection, relying solely on the name and purpose.

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