remove_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully mentions the authentication requirement, which is crucial context. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the tag doesn't exist on the track. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, authentication requirement, Args, Returns). Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and critical authentication note.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose, authentication requirement, and parameters, but lacks details about behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or usage constraints. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves room for improvement.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists all three parameters (artist, track, tag) in the Args section, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints (like character limits), so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a tag') and target ('from a track on your Last.fm profile'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_tags' or 'unlove_track' beyond the obvious action difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires authentication - use authenticate_user() and get_session() first'), which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like 'add_tags' for the opposite operation), keeping it from a perfect score.

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