linkding_delete_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the endpoint path and the dry-run-first workflow, but the dry-run mechanic is also spelled out in the schema, and it omits the most important unknown for a destructive tag delete: whether bookmarks lose the tag or are affected in any way.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, then the endpoint, then the safe-invocation rule. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter delete with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the action, the endpoint, and the dry-run path. The only meaningful gap is the effect on bookmarks that carry the tag, which an agent would want to know before executing.

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%, and the 'id' and 'confirm' fields are fully documented in the schema, including the rejection of false and the string 'true'. The description's mention of omitting confirm merely restates that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the underlying endpoint, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does. Siblings all operate on different resources (bookmark, bundle, asset), so differentiation is achieved by the resource name alone, though the description never explicitly says so.

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?

'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives real guidance on how to invoke safely, which is the main usage decision for this tool. It never states when deletion is appropriate versus alternatives such as linkding_update_tag, nor does it warn about the consequences of an irreversible delete, leaving usage largely implied.

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