delete_tag

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It explicitly discloses the permanent, irreversible nature of the deletion and states that assets are not affected. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency needed for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses clear sections for side effects, arguments, and return value. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the irreversible side effect, the parameter meaning, and the return value. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema only provides 'type: string' and 'title: Tag Id', so the description fully compensates by specifying that tag_id is 'The tag's UUID to delete'. This adds both type detail (UUID) and purpose, which is sufficient for the single required parameter.

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 specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a tag'), then clarifies the key differentiator: the tag is removed from all assets but the assets themselves are unaffected. This clearly distinguishes it from asset deletion and other tag-related operations.

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 clear context for when to use it: when a tag should be permanently deleted and removed from all assets. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative like untag_assets, but the behavior is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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