delete_tag

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

The description explains that the deletion is reversible until publication and requires confirmation, adding context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It aligns with the annotation and provides useful behavioral details.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose and key requirement (confirmation). It then lists parameters efficiently. Slightly more brevity could be achieved, but it is well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key behavioral and parameter context. It doesn't explain the output, but that is covered by the output schema. The draft lifecycle and confirmation are well explained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: types (numeric or path), sources (list_workspaces, list_tags), and the special confirm parameter requirement. This adds significant meaning 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 that the tool deletes a tag from the workspace draft, using specific verbs and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tag, update_tag by focusing on deletion and mentioning the draft scope.

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 explicit guidance: ask user first, then call again with confirm=True. It also notes that removal is not final until publishing. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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