delete_deal_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action applies 'from all deals', which indicates a broad scope, but it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether the tag definition itself is deleted. This leaves the destructive nature and side effects unclear.

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 very brief and front-loaded, with no filler. The 'Args' section is slightly redundant with the schema but is acceptable. Overall, it earns its place but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. It fails to specify the global effect on all deals, whether the action is reversible, or what the tool returns. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, tag_name, is described as 'Tag name to delete', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field name. It does not explain where to find valid tag names or any format constraints.

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 identifies the action ('delete/unlink') and resource ('deal tag'), and adds scope ('from all deals'). This helps distinguish it from siblings like rename_deal_tag or add_tags_to_deals, though the dual verb 'delete/unlink' creates slight ambiguity about whether the tag entity is destroyed or only its associations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_deal_tag or add_tags_to_deals. The description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or a note about the scope of impact compared to other tag operations.

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