delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing exactly what is destroyed and the cascade effect on contacts and conversations, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the consequence. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent must know: what is deleted and the blast radius. A line on irreversibility or on the error case for an unknown id would make it 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, though the schema text ("Numeric id.") is uninformative about which object the id belongs to. The description adds no clarification about the id's origin or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a tag") and immediately qualifies the scope: the definition is removed and the tag is detached from every contact and conversation. That scope sentence is what separates it from untag_contact, which only removes the tag from a single entity.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive scope statement, but the description never says when to reach for this versus untag_contact (detach one at a time) or update_tag-style renaming. No prerequisites or warnings about confirming before a global detach are given.

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