versions_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (DELETE), environment requirement, and the 'cannot delete live' rule. However, it does not mention what happens to associated entities or if the deletion is reversible.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides constraints. All content is essential.

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?

With 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites and a constraint but lacks details on return behavior, error handling, or how to obtain version IDs. It is adequate but incomplete.

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. It only explains the 'confirm' parameter (must be true) and hints at 'containerVersionId' as the version to delete. It fails to explain 'accountId' and 'containerId', leaving ambiguity for agents.

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 'GTM container version', with a [DELETE] prefix for HTTP method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like versions_publish and versions_undelete.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_DELETES=true and confirm=true, and warns that live versions cannot be deleted. It does not, however, explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like versions_undelete.

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