Delete tag

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

The annotations already communicate that this is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose irreversible effects, what happens to tasks using the tag, or any deletion constraints. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no value beyond them either.

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 a single, zero-waste sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise, but it is also minimal enough that some behavioral or usage context is absent, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 with an output schema and annotations, the definition is minimally viable: the agent knows what to call and what argument to provide. However, it lacks any mention of side effects or conditions for safe deletion, 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 description coverage is 100%, with one clearly documented required parameter, name_or_id. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. A baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 and resource: 'Delete an OmniFocus tag.' This is clear enough to identify the operation, and the resource type 'tag' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like delete_folder and remove_item. It does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_item, batch_remove_items, or delete_folder. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and resource type.

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