Permanently Delete Tag

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool refuses deletion by default if references exist. While annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds the safety default, which is valuable context for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the primary action and a key behavioral caveat. It wastes no words, but the terseness leaves significant information unpresented; a second sentence explaining the override parameters would improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It covers only the default refusal behavior and leaves out parameter semantics, prerequisites, side effects, and guidance on handling references. The 0% schema coverage makes this gap even more severe.

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 description must explain parameters like 'confirm', 'global_tag', and 'allow_dangling_references'. The description only says 'by default refuses', which alludes to the need for flags but never names or explains any parameter. An agent has no way to know how to override the default or what 'dangling references' means without additional context.

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 ('Delete a tag') and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('By default refuses when entries or Kanban still reference it'). This separates it from sibling tools like bundled_remove_tag or bundled_apply_tag, which operate on tag associations rather than deleting the tag itself.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to delete a tag) and hints at a prerequisite (referencing entries/Kanban must be handled), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The mention of the default refusal is a partial contextual cue, but no concrete exclusions or alternate tool names are given.

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