gtm_delete_variable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds real context beyond them: that only user-defined variables are eligible, and that the deletion targets a workspace draft rather than the live container.

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 no filler; the scope qualifier earns its place by narrowing which variables are affected.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain those. It supplies the key scoping context, though it omits whether the deletion is reversible via revert_variable.

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% and three of four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for variableId, the one undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('Delete a user-defined variable') and narrows scope with 'from an explicitly selected workspace draft.' It doesn't name a sibling alternative (e.g. revert_variable), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as gtm_revert_variable (which restores a variable) or gtm_update_variable. The only hint is the scoping phrase 'explicitly selected workspace draft,' which is implied rather than stated as guidance.

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