changedetection_delete_tag

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds important behavioral detail: deletion removes the tag from every watch. It also discloses the dry-run mechanism via confirm, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not cover auth requirements or the exact dry-run response, keeping it short of a 5.

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 three short sentences and front-loads the action and scope before the endpoint and dry-run detail. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or 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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and dry-run control adequately. It could add whether the dry-run returns a preview payload or whether deletion is reversible, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents uuid and confirm, including the strict const true requirement and rejection of false/string true. The description reinforces the dry-run behavior but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a tag") plus its scope ("remove it from every watch"), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tag tools like update_tag and create_tag. The endpoint path further disambiguates the 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?

It gives clear operational context, notably that omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview, which helps an agent invoke the destructive action safely. It does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as update_tag for renaming, but the deletion purpose is unambiguous.

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