balena_delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds 'by ID' but doesn't disclose consequences like whether the tag is permanently removed or if there are cascading effects. The confirm parameter description in the schema covers the need to review consequences, but the tool description itself doesn't add behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that states the action and the key parameter. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.

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 operation with three required parameters, the description is minimal. The schema covers the confirm constraint and kind enum, but the description doesn't explain the meaning of kind in the context of deletion (e.g., that the tag belongs to a device, fleet, or release). The output schema is absent, so the agent doesn't know what the response looks like. However, the operation is simple enough that the description plus schema is adequate, though not rich.

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 33% (only confirm has a description). The description 'by ID' clarifies that tag_id is the identifier, and kind is an enum in the schema. However, the description doesn't explain the relationship between kind and tag_id (e.g., that kind scopes the tag deletion to device/fleet/release). The schema provides the enum and the confirm constraint, so the description adds minimal 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 one tag by ID' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (tag by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like balena_create_tag and balena_update_tag, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The 'by ID' qualifier adds precision.

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 implies usage: you delete a tag when you have its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the sibling list includes create/update/list tags, so the action is clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward delete operation.

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