Delete GTM Tag

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the agent knows it's a destructive write. The description simply repeats the action without disclosing implications such as whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects other resources, or that it requires publishing to take effect. Since no additional context is added, the description contributes little beyond the annotations.

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 one sentence, directly stating the action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward delete operation.

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?

The operation is simple, but the description lacks some operational context. For instance, it does not mention that deletions are workspace-local and must be published via gtm_publish_version to take effect, nor does it mention any reversibility since destructiveHint is true. Without an output schema, the agent might expect some confirmation, but none is described. The description is minimally complete but leaves out important deployment workflow nuances.

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%: all four parameters (tag_id, account_id, container_id, workspace_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description's lack of additional param guidance keeps it at that baseline.

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 a tag from a workspace. It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('tag'), and the scope ('from a workspace') adds clarity. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools for triggers and variables by naming the resource explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or that this is a destructive action (though annotations cover that). Without context like 'use this to remove a tag that is no longer needed' or 'do not use if you only need to deactivate', the description offers no usage guidance beyond the basic action.

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