ghost_delete_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention permanence, which signals irreversibility—a key trait. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletions, associated content impact) or permission requirements, so it only partially informs the agent.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and conveys the essential action and permanence efficiently.

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 minimal complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic action and permanence. However, it omits any mention of side effects or prerequisites beyond that, which is a gap for a destructive operation, though not severe given 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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Tag ID to delete' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3 for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 action (delete), the resource (a tag), and the system (Ghost CMS), and adds the critical qualifier 'permanently'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghost_update_tag and ghost_get_tag without needing to inspect schemas.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about side effects. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its usage context from the action name alone.

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