untag_note

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 transparently documents a key side effect: 'If the entity is promoted, the note is also detached from its thread.' This goes beyond the basic operation and helps the agent understand implications.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences in the main body plus two parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the side effect is clearly stated second.

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?

The description covers the main action, a side effect, and parameter sources. Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly. However, it omits any indication of the return value or success/failure conditions, leaving a minor gap.

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. The 'Args' section defines 'note' as 'Note id' and 'entity' as 'Entity id to unlink (from list_entities/get_entity)', adding source information. However, it lacks format details or constraints, and the parameter names are self-evident. At baseline 3 for low coverage, this provides minimal but adequate additional meaning.

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 verb 'Remove an entity tag from a note' and the resource 'note', with a specific example of correcting a mis-tag. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'tag_note' by being the inverse operation.

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 context for when to use the tool ('correct a mis-tag') with an illustrative example. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria, the example effectively contrasts correct usage from incorrect scenarios.

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