gtm_delete_trigger

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that the deletion is confined to the draft workspace rather than the live container, but it says nothing about irreversibility or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier (workspace draft) is placed where it matters most.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive mutation, though, the description remains thin on side effects and downstream implications (e.g., whether the trigger still exists live), which is the kind of context an agent needs before deleting.

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 75% (account, container, workspace documented; triggerId self-evident), so the schema does most of the work. The description's phrase "workspace draft" reinforces the workspace parameter's own note that it is required for every mutating operation but adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 (delete), resource (trigger), and scope (workspace draft), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling revert_trigger, which is the closest alternative an agent might confuse it with.

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?

"Explicitly selected workspace draft" implies that a workspace must be chosen first, giving some context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs revert_trigger guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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