delete_measurement_protocol_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that secret_id may be a numeric id or full resource name, which is a useful input flexibility detail, but it does not disclose that deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens if the secret does not exist. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no redundant or irrelevant information. It is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and adds the key parameter nuance about secret_id without wasting words. Structure is optimal for a simple tool description.

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 delete tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action and a useful note about secret_id. However, it omits important context such as the resource hierarchy (property -> stream -> secret), the permanence of deletion, and any potential error scenarios. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to use it safely without additional inference.

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 compensate for all parameters. It provides meaningful detail only for secret_id (numeric id or full resource name). It leaves property_id and stream_id without any explanation, and does not clarify the hierarchy relationship among the parameters. Since only one of three parameters is partially described, the compensation is insufficient.

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 specifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Measurement Protocol API secret', which exactly matches the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_measurement_protocol_secret and list_measurement_protocol_secrets by the unique action. The additional note about secret_id accepting a numeric id or full resource name adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 verb 'Delete' implies the use case: to remove an existing Measurement Protocol API secret. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when not to use it. The context is clear from the name, but the description does not provide direct usage guidance beyond the action itself.

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