delete_space_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose whether deleting a tag also removes it from all tasks that use it, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or the effect on existing task-tag associations. For a destructive mutation with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward delete operation. Nothing extraneous.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a scope limited to two simple params, the description should disclose behavioral risks (tag removal cascade effects on tasks, irreversibility). The current description is complete only in that the purpose and params are clear, but fails to communicate the mutation's side effects, which is a real gap for safe usage.

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%, so both parameters (space_id, tag_name) are already documented with basic descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters, though it doesn't hint at additional context like tag_name being case-sensitive or exact-match.

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 'Delete a tag from a space' uses a specific verb (delete) and clearly names the resource (tag) and its container (space). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_space_tag/update_space_tag and remove_tag_from_task (which removes tags from tasks rather than deleting them from spaces).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name makes the purpose clear relative to add/update tag tools, there is no explicit context about when to delete a space tag versus remove_tag_from_task, or any constraints (e.g., what happens to tags already assigned to tasks). No when-not or alternative guidance given.

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