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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the specific consequence they don't convey: permanent/IRREVERSIBLE destruction and exactly what is removed (tags, triggers, variables, versions). The confirm=false dry-run vs confirm=true real-deletion semantics are a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, all-caps front-loading of the destructive action, then safety/workflow, then parameter format. No filler; every clause adds operational value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations plus description cover the safety profile, irreversibility, preview mode, and parameter format. Only the undocumented account parameter leaves a small completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it documents the accepted container value formats ('GTM-XXXX', name, full path) and the confirm flag's preview/execute meaning. It leaves the account parameter entirely unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 precise verb and resource ('DELETES an entire GTM container') and scopes it explicitly ('entire ... all its tags/triggers/variables/versions'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_gtm_entity that removes individual entities. An agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: preview with confirm=false, then delete with confirm=true, and a prerequisite to list the container first via list_gtm_containers. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative (delete_gtm_entity) as the non-container path, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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