ticktick_delete_tag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the destructive scope ('removed from all tasks') and authentication requirements ('v2 API authentication'). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description complements rather than contradicts, providing operational details that help the agent understand the tool's impact and prerequisites.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical behavioral and authentication details. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 authentication needs), the description covers key aspects: purpose, scope of deletion, and auth requirements. Annotations provide safety hints, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It's mostly complete but could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation or error handling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the tool name implying a 'tag' parameter. The schema defines a 'name' parameter with its own description, so the description doesn't compensate for the low coverage. With 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description adds no param semantics, it drops to 3 for minimal adequacy.

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 action ('Delete a tag') and specifies the resource ('tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_rename_tag' or 'ticktick_merge_tags' which also operate on tags, missing an opportunity for precise sibling distinction.

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 context through 'The tag will be removed from all tasks' and 'Requires v2 API authentication', suggesting when this tool is appropriate (for removing tags globally with specific auth). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'ticktick_rename_tag' or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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