Delete a tag

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical context: permanence (no trash/undo), side effects (removed from all articles), authentication requirements (wv_sk_ key with taxonomy:write scope), and the confirm workflow. This is a model of behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized for a destructive tool. Every sentence adds value: action, side effects, permanence, user confirmation, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is self-contained: it explains purpose, side effects, permanence, prerequisites (secret key), and the required user confirmation workflow. This fully equips an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (id as UUID, confirm with explanation of behavior when omitted). The description reinforces the confirm parameter's meaning but does not add significant new technical detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource, and explains the cascading effect on articles, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_article. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.

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 provides essential usage instructions: ask the user before calling, pass confirm only after agreement, and notes the required secret key scope. It also implicitly differentiates from delete_article by stating 'No article is deleted,' but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_tag.

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