Remove a tag from the organization and all candidate records using its tag ID. Find the ID with list_tags before deleting.
Delete a tag from the organization. Destructive — removes it from all candidates.
To find tag_id: list_tags → match by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_id | Yes | Tag ID to delete — get from list_tags |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / tag_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Tag ID to delete — get from list_tags"v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver the most important trait: "Destructive — removes it from all candidates," making the blast radius explicit. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the tag 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 short lines, zero waste, with the destructive nature and scope front-loaded ahead of the procedural ID-lookup hint. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter delete with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and the prerequisite lookup. Missing only edge-case behavior (nonexistent tag, error semantics), which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents tag_id and even the list_tags lookup path, so the description largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional syntax or constraint detail is added.
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+resource ("Delete a tag") and pins the scope to "from the organization," which cleanly separates it from the sibling remove_tag_from_candidate (per-candidate removal) and from delete_candidate. An agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.
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 routes the agent to list_tags for obtaining tag_id and implies the org-wide blast radius, which hints at why one would choose this over remove_tag_from_candidate. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus that sibling, so usage is inferred rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.