delete_tag

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical context: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), version gating on the library's version, and idempotency key replay semantics. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and safety.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences, each carrying essential information: destructive action, version behavior, and idempotency key. It is front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE warning and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers scope, irreversibility, versioning, idempotency, and alternatives. The agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly and assess risks.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains idempotency_key, including its behavior and purpose. The 'tag' parameter's meaning is implied by 'this tag' in the first sentence, though not explicitly defined. Overall, the description provides sufficient parameter semantics for proper use.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'permanently removes this tag from every item in the library that carries it.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool remove_tags by noting 'not one item -- see remove_tags for that', and from deletion tools by version-check behavior.

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 explicitly directs when to use an alternative: 'see remove_tags for that' for single-item tag removal. It also differentiates from delete_item_permanently/delete_collection regarding version handling, giving clear context for choosing this tool.

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