clickup_tag_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is 'Destructive and irreversible' and clarifies side effects ('The tag is removed from every task that uses it (the tasks themselves are not affected)'). It also mentions the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'), which is crucial behavioral information not available elsewhere.

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?

The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains side effects, the third warns about destructiveness, and the fourth describes the return value. No wasted words or redundant 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers the purpose, behavioral characteristics (destructive, irreversible, side effects), and return value. Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation) and lack of structured annotations/output schema, the description compensates fully with clear, comprehensive information.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (space_id and tag_name) well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns that aren't already covered in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Delete a tag from a ClickUp space'), identifies the resource ('tag'), and distinguishes it from siblings like clickup_tag_create and clickup_tag_list. It also clarifies what happens to related tasks ('removed from every task that uses it'), which helps differentiate it from clickup_task_remove_tag.

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 context about when to use this tool (to delete a tag from a space) and mentions the irreversible nature, which helps guide usage decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as clickup_tag_update for modifying instead of deleting.

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