transformations_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool deletes (which is already implied) and requires confirmation, but fails to mention irreversible consequences, side effects, or whether the deletion is permanent, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise, using only two short clauses. It efficiently conveys the action and a key requirement, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. Every component earns its place, though more detail could be included without becoming verbose.

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 deletion tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum: what it does and a prerequisite. It does not describe return behavior or implications (e.g., permanent removal), leaving the agent to infer context from the parameter schema alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only references the confirm parameter indirectly. No additional semantics for accountId, containerId, workspaceId, or transformationId are provided.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'a GTM transformation', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like transformations_get or transformations_revert by specifying deletion.

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 lists two prerequisites (environment variable and confirm parameter), guiding when the tool can be used. However, it does not state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives like transformations_revert for undo operations.

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