arvan_delete_tag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Delete' aligns with the destructive nature. However, the description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., whether deletion cascades to resources, if it requires permissions). Given the annotations, the description meets minimal requirements but doesn't supplement them.

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 a single sentence with no waste, qualifying as concise. However, it is overly terse, omitting critical details that could be included without sacrificing brevity. The structure is adequate but lacks front-loading of key information.

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 delete tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of deletion (e.g., whether the tag is permanently removed or can be recovered), the role of the 'region' parameter, or error behavior (e.g., if tag not found). The absence of an output schema further increases the need for description clarity, which is unmet.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no schema descriptions. The tool description does not explain the purpose of 'tag_id' (though obvious) or 'region' (ambiguous). It fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient to guide correct usage.

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 'Delete a resource tag by id.' which clearly indicates the action (delete) and the resource (tag). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like arvan_detach_tag, the verb 'delete' vs 'detach' implies removal of the tag itself, not just disassociation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arvan_detach_tag or arvan_create_tag). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the tag must exist or be unattached before deletion. The description lacks any usage context.

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