remove_tag

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the read-modify-write mechanism, that other tags are preserved, that the tag isn't deleted account-wide, and — critically — that a non-existent tag name gets created as a side effect. It also restates idempotency in concrete terms ('Safe to repeat') and discloses the return value.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then four short clauses each adding distinct, non-redundant information (mechanism, preservation, side effect, return). No filler.

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 simple 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, destructive scope, side effects, idempotency, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict its effects.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries most weight, but the description adds a subtle semantic: 'by name' plus the side effect that a tag_name which does not exist is created. That clarifies how the tag_name param behaves in an edge case the schema doesn't mention.

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 (Detach) and resource (tag from a lead), and scopes it by name. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_tag, list_tags, and delete_lead without opening any 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 usage context is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the inverse of add_tag, but the description never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions. 'Safe to repeat' hints at idempotent retry usage but no exclusion guidance is offered.

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