remove_track_tag

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

The description discloses an authentication requirement and clarifies the operation only affects the user's own tag, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. The destructive nature is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and no contradiction exists.

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 only a short lead sentence plus a three-line argument list, with every line adding required information. The most important facts (what, scope, auth) are front-loaded, and there is no repeated or extraneous content.

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 three-string-parameter mutating tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and authentication, so an agent can invoke it correctly. It could name sibling alternatives or mention behavior when the tag is absent, but that is not essential to making the call.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides the sole semantic explanation for each required parameter: artist is an artist name, track is a track name, and tag is the single tag to remove. This fully compensates for the bare schema and removes ambiguity about the tag parameter being singular.

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 opens with 'Remove one of your tags from a track', a specific verb+resource that states exactly what is removed and that the tag is the caller's own. The phrase 'from a track' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_album_tag and remove_artist_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?

It provides a necessary prerequisite ('Needs authentication') and implies scope by saying 'your tags', so an agent can recognize this is for removing the current user's own tag on a track. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as add_track_tags or remove_album_tag, leaving the when-not-to-use conditions unstated.

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