gtm_delete_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does well by warning that deleting a referenced trigger or variable breaks the tag and that the API will not warn you. It could add details on reversibility or confirmation semantics, but the most critical behavioral risk is disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains only one essential warning sentence after the verb phrase. Every sentence 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?

The risky side effect and the find_references prerequisite are present, which is vital for a destructive tool. However, the confirm parameter is not explained, and parameter semantics are thin, leaving an agent uncertain about how to safely complete the call. The output schema's existence mitigates some return-format concerns.

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 the six parameters, but it only mentions entity types indirectly via 'trigger or variable.' It does not explain entity_type values, entity_id format, the confirm flag, or how account_id/container_id/workspace_id relate to the workspace.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an entity from a workspace.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling gtm_delete_workspace and matches the tool name without being a tautology.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite by instructing agents to 'Run find_references first' before deleting referenced entities. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gtm_update_entity, but the safety precondition is concrete and actionable.

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