untag_bookmarkRemove selected tags from a saved bookmark while preserving the tags themselves so items can be reorganized or reclassified.
Remove tags from a bookmark (AI- or user-attached). The tags themselves stay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | Tag names, e.g. ['python', 'to read']. | |
| bookmark_id | Yes | Bookmark id from another tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by clarifying that "the tags themselves stay" (removal detaches, it does not delete the tag entity) and by noting AI- as well as user-attached tags are affected. It stops short of saying how non-existent or already-removed tags are handled.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the key non-obvious caveat (tags persist) immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists and the two parameters are fully documented, so return values need no explanation. For an idempotent, non-destructive mutation the description is nearly sufficient; only the behavior for tags that are not currently attached is unstated.
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%, with both bookmark_id and tags documented in the schema including an example for tags. The description adds no format, ordering, or partial-failure semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
"Remove tags from a bookmark" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical "(AI- or user-attached)" scopes which tags are eligible. The distinction from the complementary tag_bookmark sibling is clear from the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the detach operation versus tag_bookmark's attach. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what happens if a tag is not currently attached, and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.