Delete Tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tag is stripped from every document that references it, and ambiguous names are rejected with candidate ids. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, followed by the input-handling rule. 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?

With annotations covering destructiveness and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the two missing behavioral facts: cascade removal and ambiguity rejection. Only workspace scoping and permanence are absent, which keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, and the description's clause about id-or-name and ambiguous rejection largely restates the schema's own tag description. The workspaceId parameter, including the AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID fallback, is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 and resource (delete a workspace-level tag) plus the blast radius (removed from every referencing document). 'Workspace-level' implicitly distinguishes it from remove_tag_from_doc, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 cascade wording hints at when this is appropriate rather than remove_tag_from_doc, but the description never states the condition or names the alternative. Usage is inferred, not specified.

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