built_in_variables_disable

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states the action and the requirement for confirm and an environment variable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on tags using these variables) or that the disable action is reversible via revert tool. The description adds some context beyond the bare action but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('[DELETE] Disable one or more built-in variables') and includes essential prerequisites concisely. Every phrase contributes value.

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 description covers the basic action and precondition, but given the tool's complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema), it leaves gaps. It does not explain the effect of disabling (e.g., immediate impact, reversibility) or provide full context for parameters. The existence of a revert sibling tool is not mentioned to indicate undo capability.

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 only 20% (only 'types' has a description). The description does not individually explain most parameters. It mentions the 'confirm' parameter required as part of the prerequisite, but accountId, containerId, and workspaceId are left unexplained. The description adds marginal value over the schema for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Disable' and the resource 'built-in variables in a GTM workspace'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like built_in_variables_enable and built_in_variables_list by focusing on the disable action. The [DELETE] prefix further clarifies the operation type.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_DELETES=true and confirm=true', which guides the agent on conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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