delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool is destructive. The description adds value by explaining the default failure behavior (HTTP 422 with dependents payload) and the effect of force=true (delete and disassociate). It does not specify if the operation is reversible, but the schema param force description calls it 'irreversible'. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Delete a tag') and then provides essential details about default behavior and the force option. Every part is informative with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (delete with optional force) and the presence of schema descriptions for both parameters, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: default failure condition and force behavior. There is no output schema, but for a delete tool, return values are often standard (e.g., success/error) and may not need elaborate description. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 meaning by explaining the effect of the force parameter: 'Set force=true to delete and disassociate from those records.' This clarifies the consequence beyond the schema's 'irreversible' label. The tagId parameter is clear from the schema. The description adds moderate 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 'Delete a tag' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools like delete_category, delete_manual_account, etc., by naming the resource 'tag'. The additional details about default failure and force option further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 force=true versus the default behavior. It describes that by default, deletion fails with a dependents payload if the tag is in use, and force=true disassociates the tag. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, though for a delete operation the use case is self-evident.

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