Delete Gtag Config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important behavior: deletion is irreversible and cannot be undone short of discarding the workspace. It does not cover permissions or side effects like references to the config, but the critical destructive trait is clearly and prominently stated.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the operation and the second adds the crucial irreversible caveat. The description is front-loaded, contains no filler, and 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?

For a focused delete tool with all four required parameters documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key operational fact an agent needs: the action is irreversible. It lacks explicit prerequisite or permission context, but nothing essential to basic invocation is missing.

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 already documents all four required parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond identifying the entity type, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 opening sentence states the exact action ('Delete') and resource ('a Google tag configuration from a workspace'), so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. The follow-up note about no revert method clearly marks this as the destructive GTM config deletion tool, distinguishing it from delete_tag and other sibling delete tools.

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?

The description implies a caution context: because configs have no revert method, the tool should only be used when permanent deletion is intended. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over update_gtag_config or names alternative revert tools for other entities, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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