gtm_delete_variableDelete a variable from a Google Tag Manager workspace using its ID. Specify the account, container, workspace, and variable IDs to remove the variable.
Delete a variable from a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The GTM account ID | |
| variable_id | Yes | The GTM variable ID to delete | |
| container_id | Yes | The GTM container ID | |
| workspace_id | Yes | The GTM workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey that the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as permanence, side effects, or concurrency implications. It is consistent with annotations but provides no additional insight, keeping it neutral.
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 a single, concise sentence that is immediately front-loaded with the essential verb and object. There is zero wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the 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?
For a simple delete operation, the description is adequate given the rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and fully documented schema. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need. The description could optionally mention that deletion is permanent or irreversible, but that is already implied by the destructive annotation, so it remains sufficiently complete.
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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameters are straightforward identifiers, and the description does not clarify relationships or usage nuances.
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 variable), and the context (from a workspace). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_tag and delete_trigger, making its purpose unambiguous.
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions (e.g., 'use only if variable is not referenced' or 'see gtm_disable_variable for non-destructive removal'). It simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.