Delete Tag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the cascading removal from documents and the rejection of ambiguous names with candidate ids. Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but these specifics help the agent understand side effects and error handling.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and key edge case without any waste. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and the annotations, the description sufficiently covers the main behavior, scope, and important error handling. The disambiguation behavior is explicitly stated, making the tool safe to invoke 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?

The schema covers both parameters with detailed descriptions, including that 'tag' accepts an id or name and that ambiguous names are rejected. The description reinforces these points but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond the schema.

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: deleting a workspace-level tag and removing it from every referenced document. This distinguishes it from related tools like remove_tag_from_doc by specifying workspace-level scope and cascading effect.

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 the tool by emphasizing workspace-level tags and the removal from all documents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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