Delete Tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the title. It does not disclose consequences, reversibility, permissions, or possible side effects on associated documents, so the description carries no extra transparency value.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with zero filler. However, it carries no information beyond the title, so the terseness borders on under-specification; it is acceptable for such a simple tool but not a model of helpful structure.

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 delete operation with annotations and an output schema present, the minimal invocation is inferable. The main gap is the lack of any statement about side effects or cascading behavior, which is relevant for a destructive tool like this.

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%, and the description never mentions tag_id or what value should be supplied. The parameter name and integer type in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantic meaning to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('tag'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_document or delete_correspondent. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and adds no scope or qualifier, so it is clear but not exceptional.

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 is given about when to use delete_tag versus related tools such as update_tag, bulk_edit_tags, or delete_document_type. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and siblings, with no exclusions or alternative conditions provided.

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