delete_tagging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens if the tagging doesn't exist, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Remove a tag from an item') and includes necessary qualification ('Qiita Team only') without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a platform constraint but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, error conditions, or authentication requirements. While concise, it's incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters ('item_id' and 'tagging_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (like explaining what constitutes a valid ID or the relationship between items and taggings). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Remove a tag') and target ('from an item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_tagging' and 'delete_item' by focusing on tag removal rather than creation or item deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar operations like 'unfollow_tag' which deals with user-tag relationships rather than item-tag relationships.

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 includes a contextual constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some guidance about when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_item' (if tags can be modified that way) or provide explicit exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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