delete_tag

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states irreversibility, cascading deletion of child tags, automatic removal from tasks/projects, and the mandatory user-confirmation requirement. This is comprehensive disclosure for a destructive 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the destructive action, the consequences, and the mandatory confirmation step. The most important warning is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: scope, irreversibility, cascade behavior, side effects, and the required user confirmation. No critical operational detail is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the id beyond the schema, but no compensation is needed given full schema coverage.

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 ('delete'), a specific resource ('OmniFocus tag'), and a critical qualifier ('permanently'), which clearly distinguishes it from editing, creating, or non-destructive tag operations. It is immediately obvious that this tool removes a tag and is not a soft-delete or update 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?

The description gives clear context about when to use this tool: when permanently deleting a tag, and it mandates that the user must explicitly confirm before invoking it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_tag, but the destructive nature and confirmation requirement effectively guide an agent's decision-making.

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