detach_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: that confirm=true is required, which the schema does not state (confirm is optional, default false). But it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens if confirm is false, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. The existing output schema covers return values, but board/item/tag parameter meaning, permission requirements, and failure behavior are left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers tag_id and item_id ('a tag from an item') and the confirm requirement, but board_id is never mentioned and none of the id parameters get format or scoping meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a tag from an item.' It clearly implies a distinction from sibling attach_tag (add) and delete_tag (delete the tag itself), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 'Requires confirm=true' note gives a concrete precondition for invocation, which is useful. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus attach_tag, delete_tag, or get_item_tags, so the selection logic is only implied by the verb.

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