untag_contact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real operational detail beyond that: the tag may be supplied as a URL-encoded name, and detaching an absent tag returns 200 rather than an error, which tells the agent not to guard the call with an existence check.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the edge-case behavior placed last where it belongs. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter association-removal tool with full schema coverage and a clear annotation set, this is close to complete; the missing piece is the return shape, since there is no output schema and the description never says whether the call returns the contact, the remaining tags, or nothing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the URL-encoding requirement for the name form, which is genuinely useful, but it never states that "id" is the contact id, which the schema only calls "Numeric id."

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?

"Detach a tag" names a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence clarifies the mechanism (by id or URL-encoded name). It is clearly distinct from delete_tag (removes the tag itself) and tag_contact, though the description never explicitly says the detachment is scoped to a contact, leaving that to the tool name and the third sentence.

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 context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this removes a tag association from a contact, and the 200-on-missing note tells it not to pre-check existence. However, there is no explicit routing guidance against the closest siblings, delete_tag (deletes a tag globally) or tag_contact (the inverse operation), which is exactly where an agent is most likely to choose wrong.

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