upservice_unassign_tag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns. It adds the return format (JSON confirmation or error message). However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the tag is deleted or just detached). With annotations present, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not extensive addition.

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 concise with no wasted words, and includes an 'Args' and 'Returns' section for clarity. Although not in markdown, it is well-structured and easy to parse. A slight reduction from 5 because it could be more standardized.

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 presence of schema descriptions, annotations (destructive, readOnly, idempotent), and output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple tool. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, leaving minimal ambiguity 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (tag_id, entity_id, entity_type). The description lists these fields but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is effectively high (descriptions present), the description adds marginal 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 (detach) a tag from an entity', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upservice_assign_tag' and 'upservice_delete_tag' by explicitly indicating removal vs. assignment or deletion.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and context imply it is the inverse of 'assign_tag'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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