PupilTagDelete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'WARNING: Destructive: removes the tag.' It adds useful operational context beyond the structured annotations by stating 'Requires client-side approval,' which is not encoded in the schema or annotations. This helps the agent understand side effects and invocation expectations.

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 short and to the point, with the destructive warning prominently placed. The first sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name, but the warning adds critical information without extra fluff. Overall, it is appropriately compact for a simple deletion tool.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates the action, the destructive side effect, and the requirement for client-side approval. It does not describe success/failure responses or permission requirements, but those gaps are minor for such a simple tool.

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%, and TagId is described as 'integer (required).' The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, such as where to find TagId or how it relates to an existing pupil tag. Since the schema covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Delete a pupil tag.' It distinguishes from nearby siblings like PupilTagCreate and PupilTagGetList by naming the delete operation on the tag resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other delete-style tools or add contextual meaning beyond the tool's name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a destructive warning and client-side approval, but it does not say when to prefer this over PupilTagCreate, PupilTagGetList, or other tag-related operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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