Remove Tag Instance From Project

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

The description reiterates the destructive nature ('permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') beyond what the annotations (destructiveHint: true) provide. It also notes that a successful response includes the removed Tag Instance UUID. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 clear and front-loaded with the key action, but it contains repetitive phrasing ('permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' appear twice). It could be more concise.

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?

The description specifies the return value (the removed Tag Instance UUID) and mentions the API endpoint and category. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), error conditions, or handling of non-existent tag instances, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 description lists the three required parameters but adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which already has detailed descriptions indicating they are URL path parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no extra semantic value.

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 (Remove a Tag from a Project), the key parameter (tag_instance_id), and the expected outcome (returns removed UUID). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like add_tag_instance_to_project and delete_a_resource_planning_tag, as it specifies the exact resource and scope.

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 permanently delete Resource Planning records) and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., removing a tag from a person), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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