delete_tagging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (remove) but does not mention whether the operation is permanent, requires specific permissions, or returns a response indicating success or failure. For a delete operation, this is a minimal but notable 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, front-loaded sentence that uses a specific verb and clarifies with a parenthetical. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or restatement of structural information. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core action. It could be improved by stating whether the operation returns any result or if it is irreversible, but given the simplicity of the operation, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema describes the 'id' parameter as 'ID of the resource' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; however, the tool name makes it clear the id refers to the tagging. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter and the description adds no further semantics.

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 'Remove a tagging (untag an asset)' clearly states a specific action (remove) and a specific resource (tagging), with a parenthetical clarifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_tag (which deletes a tag definition) and bulk_remove_tags_from_assets (which handles bulk operations).

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this to remove a single tagging from an asset. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like bulk_remove_tags_from_assets or remove_asset_auto_tag, nor does it provide exclusions. Guidance is present but not explicit.

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