analyticsadmin.properties.dataStreams.measurementProtocolSecrets.delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, read-only refusal behavior, that it returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON, and how the request body is constructed (typed params vs params map vs body_file). The hedge 'unless the API documents a trash/undo flow' introduces minor ambiguity about recoverability.

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-loaded with the verb+resource and HTTP method, then behavioral traits, then siblings. It is dense but every clause (irreversibility, readonly refusal, return shape, body construction) carries information; slightly crowded into a single flowing paragraph.

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 destructive operation with an output schema and 100% param coverage, the description adds the key non-structured context an agent needs: irreversibility, safety-profile refusal, and return shape. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the recoverability hedge as a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents name, query, params, dry_run, and body_file. The description only adds the typed-params-win precedence and body_file behavior, which is largely already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (MeasurementProtocolSecret) and names the HTTP method, then lists the siblings over the same resource (create, get, list, patch) so the agent can distinguish this from them without inspecting 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?

Provides clear usage context — refused under --readonly safety profiles and irreversible — and names the sibling operations. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not versus a specific alternative (e.g., patch), so it falls just below a 5.

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