Delete asset tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scope detail (authenticated user's library) and omits notable behaviors such as the required confirm=true gate for the mutation and idempotency-key usage, so it contributes modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true tightness.

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 with no output schema, the annotations cover safety and the schema covers all four parameters, so the description is adequate. However, it omits the confirm=true requirement that gates the operation and any note about what happens to tags currently assigned to assets, leaving a meaningful gap.

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%, so tag_id, account, confirm, and Idempotency_Key are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what is provided there, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb (Delete) and resource (asset tag) scoped to the authenticated user's fal Assets library. It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate from close siblings like update_asset_tag or unassign_asset_tag, so an agent must rely on the name alone to route correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as unassign_asset_tag (which removes a tag from an asset rather than deleting the tag itself). The description offers no conditions under which this tool should or should not be chosen.

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