delete_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the operation as destructive, discloses the cascading side effect on all work items, and requires confirm=true as a safety gate. This is significant, actionable behavior context that prevents accidental destructive calls.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, destructive warning with specifics, and confirmation requirement. Front-loaded, zero filler, and highly scannable. This is exemplary concise writing.

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 deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what it deletes, the destructive consequence, and the required safety parameter. The tool is simple enough that no additional context (e.g., permissions or error conditions) is needed for correct invocation.

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 adds semantics for the confirm parameter by explaining it must be true, which is the only non-obvious parameter. The project_id and tag_id parameters are self-evident from the tool name and schema structure, so the description adequately supplements the sparse schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a tag.' It further clarifies the scope by noting 'removes it from all work items,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach_tag (which only removes a tag from one work item) and update_tag. This unambiguous action-resource pairing is exactly what an agent needs.

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 provides clear usage context by identifying the destructive global effect and stating the confirmation requirement ('confirm=true required'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., detach_tag) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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