gtm_delete_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It plainly states the destructive action, but it does not warn that deletion is permanent, mention required GTM permissions, or note that deleting a trigger may break tags that reference it.

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 that front-loads the action and resource without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic operation. Missing context includes permanence, side effects on referencing tags, permission requirements, and what happens after deletion, so the description is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, documenting accountId, containerId, workspaceId, and triggerId. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states an unambiguous verb ('Deletes'), a clear resource ('a trigger'), and scope ('from a GTM workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_create_trigger, gtm_update_trigger, gtm_get_trigger, and gtm_list_triggers without needing to open their schemas.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned. For example, an agent is not told to first list triggers with gtm_list_triggers or verify the trigger is not referenced by tags before deleting.

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