Remove Tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses conflict resolution, recoverability, cascading deletion, and project suggestion. It does not detail error cases or return values, but the behavioral traits are adequately covered for a removal tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers key points without waste. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow, conflict, recoverability, and cascading. It lacks details on return values or errors, but for a removal tool it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the conflict flow and clean_items, but clean_items is deprecated and may cause confusion. Overall, it provides some additional value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool removes a tag via archiving or deletion, including conflict resolution flow. It distinguishes from siblings like rename_tag and other removal tools by specifying the two-step conflict process and project ownership suggestion.

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 explains when to use the tool (to archive or delete a tag) and outlines the conflict resolution process. It also advises about project ownership suggesting an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to specific siblings.

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