Removes a specified tag from a note using the note ID and tag ID. System tags cannot be deleted.
删除笔记的指定标签（系统标签不可删除）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_id | Yes | 要删除的标签 ID（来自 add_note_tags 返回或 get_note 的 tags[].id 字段） | |
| note_id | Yes | 笔记 ID（优先传十进制字符串） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / note_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"笔记 ID"New value: +"笔记 ID（优先传十进制字符串）"Input schema / properties / note_id / typePrevious value: -[
- "number",
- "string"
-]New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / tag_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"要删除的标签 ID"New value: +"要删除的标签 ID（来自 add_note_tags 返回或 get_note 的 tags[].id 字段）"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral constraint — system tags cannot be deleted — which is genuinely beyond the schema, but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency, or what happens when the tag is not attached to the note.
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?
One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and the restriction immediately after in parentheses. No filler, no repetition of the name.
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 mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are covered. However, with zero annotations the description should say more about failure modes (tag absent, permission denied) to be fully sufficient.
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 100%, so both parameters (note_id, tag_id, including accepted types and provenance of tag_id) are already fully documented. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource combination ('删除笔记的指定标签') and adds a scope constraint that system tags cannot be removed. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly position itself against the inverse sibling add_note_tags.
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?
Use is implied by the operation (removing a tag already on a note), and the parenthetical gives one precondition (system tags are undeletable). There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as add_note_tags for the reverse action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.