remove_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when the tag is absent, whether it errors or no-ops, or whether removal is reversible.

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. It is efficient, though for a seven-parameter tool the compressed form leaves no structure for disambiguating how the target is specified.

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 seven parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. The critical missing piece is the target-addressing logic — which of clip/item/track/project/sequence/kind to supply for each object type — which an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 0% across seven parameters, and the description only clarifies the 'tag' parameter (name or GUID). The six target-location parameters (clip, item, kind, track, project, sequence) are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell which combination is required for which target type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a tag') and names the accepted identifier forms (name or GUID). It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_tag by direction of the operation, but it muddles the target by listing 'clip, sequence, track or shot' while the schema actually exposes clip/item/track/project/sequence/kind, leaving the exact target model slightly ambiguous.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as add_tag or get_selection. An agent has no signal about how this relates to the many other mutation tools in the sibling list.

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