delete_tag

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 discloses the key cascading effect: deleting the tag removes it from everything using it. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or response type, but the main destructive behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately adding the important side effect. The safety hint is placed after the main behavior, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and gives a practical safety precondition. It could mention whether the operation is reversible or what a success response looks like, but the core calling context is complete.

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 already documents the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra nuance beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation for a fully described schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a tag') and clearly states the cascading effect: 'remove it from everything using it.' This distinguishes it from tag-related siblings like list_tags, create_tag, and update_tag, and from unrelated delete_* tools.

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 explicitly advises checking list_tags first, which gives the agent a concrete precondition before invoking the destructive operation. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives, but the deletion context is clear enough.

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