bear_remove_tag

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. The description adds value by explaining how ancestor tags are handled and that orphaned ancestors are dropped from the index, which is beyond annotation info. No contradictions.

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 sentences: the first clearly states the primary function, the second provides nuanced hierarchical details. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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 removal tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the action, scope, and side effects (orphaned ancestors). It could mention error cases (e.g., if tag doesn't exist on note) but overall complete given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (id, tag). The description adds meaning by noting that tag should be provided without '#' and that it works on any visible tag, including ancestor expansions. This extra context elevates it above baseline 3.

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 states the action ('Remove a tag from a specific Bear note') and specifies the resource (note and tag). It provides distinction from siblings like bear_delete_tag (which deletes tags globally) by focusing on note-level removal. The additional hierarchy detail further clarifies scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use (remove a tag from a note) and explains hierarchical behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling bear_delete_tag for global deletion, missing some usage guidance.

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