delete_tag_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (preserving key if other values remain) but does not mention side effects, error handling (e.g., if tag does not exist), authorization requirements, or idempotency.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'delete' and the resource 'tag key-value pairs', followed by the clarifying nuance in parentheses.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and an important behavioral detail. It could be improved by noting idempotency or error behavior, but overall it is adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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% and both parameters are clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but the behavioral context indirectly clarifies the effect. Baseline 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 tool deletes specific tag key-value pairs from an entity, with the important nuance that it keeps the key if other values remain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tags_from_entity and add_tags_to_entity.

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 implies usage for deleting specific pairs while preserving the key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_tags_from_entity or replace_tags_on_entity. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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