reach_deleteATagV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: the tag is removed from every contact, contacts are preserved, and the operation is idempotent (deleting a non-existent tag succeeds). This is strong transparency for a simple deletion tool, though it doesn't mention reversibility or return values.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Delete a tag and remove it from every contact carrying it'), followed by two critical clarifications (contacts not deleted, idempotency). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it defines the main operation, the cascade effect to contacts, the non-deletion of contacts, and idempotent behavior. No essential information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, providing basic 'uuid parameter' descriptions. The description adds meaning by contextualizing 'tag' and 'profile' (e.g., 'in the profile'), clarifying that tagUuid is the tag to delete and profileUuid is the profile context. This goes beyond the schema but isn't exhaustive.

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 tool deletes a tag and removes it from every contact carrying it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like removing a contact from a tag or deleting a contact. The verb 'Delete' is specific and the resource is a tag, with the scope clarified as 'every contact carrying it'.

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: it deletes a tag, removes it from all contacts, and clarifies that contacts themselves are not deleted. This implicitly warns against using it for contact deletion or single-contact removal, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools. Idempotency is noted, aiding usage understanding.

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