delete_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a deletion, which implies mutation and irreversibility, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects animation frames or cels, whether it requires the file to be saved, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is arguably under-specified for a destructive tool, so while concise, it does not earn a 5 because it omits behavioral context that would be more valuable than additional length.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of deleting a tag, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to frames using the tag, or how the two parameters relate. The sibling set_tag exists, so a brief cross-reference would have substantially improved completeness.

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 for the two parameters (filename and name). The description only mentions 'animation tag' generically and does not explain that 'name' identifies the tag and 'filename' identifies the target animation file. An agent can infer some meaning from the parameter names, but the description adds no explicit semantic value 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 'Delete an existing animation tag' clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (animation tag), and the precondition (existing). It is distinguishable from the sibling set_tag, which creates or updates a tag, and from delete_frame/delete_layer/delete_slice, which target different resources. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that the tag must exist, what happens if it doesn't, or that set_tag is the counterpart for creating/updating tags. The context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit routing or when-not-to-use guidance.

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