tags.remove

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 reveals destructive scope ('on the link only'), idempotency, absence of external auth/rate limits, and the return value, providing unusually complete transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action is front-loaded, followed by destructive scope, idempotence, auth, return value, parameter reminder, and the alternative. Dense yet efficient with no filler.

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-adjacent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers safety, reversibility, idempotence, return format, parameter sourcing, and alternative sibling behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by emphasizing that tag_ids are integers, not names, and that file_id refers to a single file, resolving common misinterpretations beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 ('Detach') and resource ('tag IDs from ONE file'), immediately clarifying the operation's scope and distinguishing it from destructive file/tag deletion. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings like tags.add and tags.search in a later sentence.

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 explicit usage guidance: it clarifies that this tool removes tags from one file only, that IDs not names are required, and that bulk untagging by query is not available; it points to tags.search as the additive-only alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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