Delete tags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the reverse-lookup reporting (removedFrom before delete), post-delete re-reads (stillCarries), the empty-slot read-back, and a hard bridge version prerequisite (0.36.0). Batch behavior is unusually well specified — ordered execution, no retries, an unknown outcome halting the remainder. Missing only side-effect framing such as whether the delete is undoable or what authority is required.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then layered single-form, prerequisite, and batch rules in a logical order. It is a single dense paragraph with some run-on clause chaining that could be split, but no sentence is padding.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers verification, per-item reporting, failure propagation and a version gate — nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about permissions or irreversibility, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning by explaining the collision rule behind the `tag` parameter and the inheritance model for `tags` (item fields win over the shared defaults). The `detail` semantics are restated in prose ("detail: true for every step"), which slightly duplicates the schema but reinforces the per-item output shape.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a tag") and pins the identifier form: number or exact name, with ambiguity refused. That is enough for an agent to separate it from gma3_store_tag, gma3_assign_tag and gma3_configure_tag without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear rule for choosing the batch form over the single form ("give the list instead of the single object's fields") and explains how per-item and default arguments interact. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when tag deletion is preferable to reconfiguring/ungrouping, so usage context is clear but not fully routed.

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