Untag assets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful detail that the tag entity survives and that tag-to-asset links are the thing destroyed. It does not say what happens to nonexistent tag/asset IDs or whether the operation is all-or-nothing on partial failure, which keeps it below 5.

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 purpose and the key preservation fact, then args and returns in a scannable structure. The "Side effect: removes tag-to-asset links" line partially restates the second sentence, a small 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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value sentence is bonus rather than necessary, and annotations cover the destructive profile. What remains thin is failure semantics for a bulk mutation — an agent cannot tell from the description whether one bad asset ID aborts the whole batch.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does document both parameters (tag UUID, list of asset UUIDs) plus a non-empty constraint the schema lacks. It does not clarify ID format, batch size limits, or whether duplicate IDs are tolerated, so compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Remove a tag from multiple assets") and immediately scopes it against the obvious confusion with delete_tag by stating "The tag itself remains; only the association is removed." An agent can distinguish this from tag_assets and delete_tag without inspecting either 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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (bulk untagging), and the "Must not be empty" constraint on asset_ids gives a concrete precondition. However, it never explicitly names the inverse tool tag_assets or states when to prefer delete_tag over this, leaving routing to inference.

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