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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes beyond them by spelling out irreversibility and the confirm=false preview / confirm=true execute gate, which is the critical behavioral contract for a delete. It also discloses the Default Workspace protection rule, a real constraint the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then packs path sourcing and the safety toggle into compact fragments with zero filler. Every clause (kind values, list-tool sourcing, confirm gate, container exclusion) carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps for a destructive tool: irreversibility, dry-run vs execute, param sourcing, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 carries the full load and does: it enumerates the allowed `kind` values despite no enum in the schema, explains that `path` is the full path sourced from the list tools, and defines the `confirm` toggle's semantics. All three parameters gain meaning not present in the schema.

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 (DELETES), the resource class (GTM tag/trigger/variable/workspace), the keying mechanism (full `path`), and flags irreversibility. It explicitly separates itself from delete_gtm_container, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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 the prerequisite for obtaining `path` (list_gtm_tags/triggers/variables/workspaces), names the alternative for whole-container deletion, and states an exclusion (the container's Default Workspace can't be deleted). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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