better-bear

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating 'Delete a tag' and implying idempotency through removal from all notes. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that 'notes are preserved' and the tag text is removed, providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, the second clarifies effects. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 (destructive operation with one parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully documents inputs. The description adds context about note preservation and tag removal, but lacks output details (no output schema). It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning response format or errors.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tag' parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal semantic context by noting the tag is removed 'without #', but this is already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the primary burden.

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 specific action ('Delete a tag from all Bear notes') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'bear_remove_tag' (which likely removes a tag from a specific note) by specifying 'from all Bear notes'. It also clarifies what happens to the tag text and notes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 across all notes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_remove_tag' or 'bear_rename_tag'. It provides clear context about the scope ('from all Bear notes'), but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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