clients_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Delete a GTM client' and requires confirmation, but does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on related entities, or required permissions. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the operation and key requirements. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately useful for the agent, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and 5 required parameters, the description covers the core action and prerequisites but omits details on response behavior, error cases, or permanence. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value only for 'confirm' (must be true), but other parameters (accountId, containerId, etc.) have self-explanatory names and no additional context from the description.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a GTM client,' which is a clear verb+resource pair. The HTTP method and requirement are noted, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clients_list or clients_get by the delete verb.

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 mentions prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_DELETES=true and confirm=true) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clients_revert or clients_get. It lacks explicit when/ when-not context.

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