delete_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature ('HARD delete', 'gone permanently'), the side effect on historical applications ('Removes it from any calls or form submissions that had it applied'), and the return value. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and consequence come first, the alternative is stated next, and parameter details are organized in a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, the permanent consequence, the alternative, parameter semantics, and the return format. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured, but the description still adds the concrete JSON example. Nothing critical is missing.

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, and it does. It explains that tag_id is a numeric integer (not the string-prefixed format used elsewhere), provides a regex pattern, and notes that account_id auto-resolves if omitted. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('tag definition'), and the scope ('from the account'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_tag and create_tag by explaining what it does to the tag and its historical applications. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To preserve history, prefer renaming or disabling via update_tag instead.' This is a direct, actionable usage guideline that names the alternative and the condition for choosing it. It also warns that this is a HARD delete, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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