Delete n8n Tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds critical context by stating 'Removes it from all workflows that use it,' which goes beyond a generic delete and informs the agent of the cascading side effect. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation.

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 prose is tight: two sentences that state purpose and side effect. However, the 'Args' block duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is redundant and slightly wasteful. It's still concise overall but not as lean as it could be.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool with complete annotations and schema coverage, the description adequately covers the action and its primary side effect. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but for a destructive operation with no output schema, the absence is not a significant gap. The description is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Tag ID to delete' in the schema. The description repeats this in the Args section without adding new meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or behavior). Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'a tag' and immediately clarifies the scope: 'Removes it from all workflows that use it.' This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like n8n_delete_workflow or n8n_delete_execution, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that deleting a tag is different from unassigning it (e.g., via n8n_set_workflow_tags), nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose, not explicitly guided.

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