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

The destructive annotation already signals deletion, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: automatic resolution of event names to IDs, not_found and ambiguous_key_event error shapes, rejection of standard key events with not_deletable, and the returned 'deleted' resource name. It does not discuss irreversibility or permissions, but it provides substantial behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the delete action and then documents parameters and error behavior. It is somewhat dense and includes multiple inline error examples, but for a destructive tool with complex name resolution the length is largely justified.

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 destructive operation, zero schema description coverage, and complex key-event resolution, the description covers the essential inputs, validation failures, and result. An output schema exists, so it does not need to explain return structure in full.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden and does: property_id is tied to the workspace, key_event_name accepts a numeric ID, full path, or event name with auto-resolution, and workspace is optional when only one workspace exists. It also explains candidate key_event_id usage for ambiguous names.

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 states a specific verb ('löschen') and resource ('GA4 Key Event (Conversion)') and makes clear the operation targets a GA4 property. It is readily distinguishable from siblings such as ga4_create_key_event and ga4_list_key_events.

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 gives clear operational context: property_id must belong to the workspace, key_event_name can come from ga4_list_key_events or ga4_create_key_event, and standard key events cannot be deleted. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives for other operations, but the usage context is strong.

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