delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the operationally important constraint that deletion fails when the tag is still assigned — genuine context beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't say what error behavior or side effects to expect.

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, with the endpoint and the blocking precondition front-loaded. Minor waste in repeating the title and a typo ('assigments'), but nothing padding or buried.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: the target, the mutation, and the precondition that gates success. Only the exact failure mode when the tag is assigned is left implicit.

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% and tagId is documented as 'The identifier of the tag'. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format, range, or acquisition guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 existing tag by id') plus the underlying endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from retrieve_tag, update_tag, and delete_assignment without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest sibling, delete_assignment.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: the tag can only be deleted if it is not assigned to any resource, and it advises checking tag assignments first. It does not name the sibling tool (retrieve_assignment_list) that performs that check, leaving the agent to infer the next call.

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