sonarr_delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of irreversibility, whether the tag is detached from existing series, or failure behavior for an unknown ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations carry the risk profile and whose schema carries the ID source, this is minimally sufficient. The gap is that a destructive operation ideally states what is lost and whether the removal is recoverable.

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% and the parameter description already names the source of valid IDs ('from sonarr_get_tags'). 'by ID' in the description restates the schema without adding format, validity, or error semantics; the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Delete') plus specific resource ('Sonarr tag') scoped by identifier. It implicitly distinguishes itself from radarr_delete_tag via the service name, but the description never acknowledges the near-identical sibling, so an agent must infer the routing rule.

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 on when to delete versus update (sonarr_update_tag) or how to discover IDs beyond the schema hint. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated.

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