untag_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about the mutating nature of the operation, error behavior when the tag doesn't exist, whether it's reversible, or authentication requirements. For an operation that modifies state, this is a significant gap with zero annotation coverage to compensate.

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 short phrase, which is economical, but it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It's not front-loaded with wasted content - it's just minimal. There's no elaboration anywhere that would help an agent, so the brevity here is more a function of absence than efficiency.

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?

This is a mutating tool (removes a tag association) with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the action at a high level without explaining success/error semantics, the effect of untagging (does it delete the tag itself or only the association?), or how the entry_type enum maps to different tag stores. For an operation that modifies persistent state across 15 possible entry types, the description is inadequate.

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% - all three parameters have descriptions in the schema (entry_id=エントリID, tag_name=タグ名, entry_type=エントリのテーブル名). The entry_type enum is well-defined with 15 valid values. However, the description adds no param semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'エントリからタグを解除' (Untag from entry) clearly expresses the verb (untag/remove tag) and resource (entry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tag_entry (which adds tags) and list_tags/get_entry_tags (which read tags), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is clear and specific enough given the tool naming convention.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the relationship to tag_entry (its natural counterpart), nor does it clarify prerequisites like whether the tag must already exist on the entry or what happens when the tag isn't present. The sibling set includes tag_entry and get_entry_tags, but the description fails to position itself relative to these.

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