Unassign tag from asset

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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it never mentions the confirm=true requirement, irreversibility, or account scoping that the schema fields imply are needed.

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 wasted words, which is appropriate for this operation. It is efficient, though the misleading identifier clause costs it a point.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits the confirm requirement, account scoping, and any note on reversibility. The annotations cover the destructive profile, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke this safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's phrase 'by request ID or vector ID' implies those are the identifying inputs when the schema's only required parameter is tag_id and the ID fields are described as pre-mutation asset-saving inputs. This adds confusion rather than clarity beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Unassign a tag from an asset'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling assign_asset_tag and set_asset_tags_for_asset. The trailing 'by request ID or vector ID' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose, since those identifiers are not the required input.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus assign_asset_tag, set_asset_tags_for_asset, or delete_asset_tag. Removal is only implied by the verb, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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