zones_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool is destructive ('DELETE') and requires a guard flag and confirmation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as irreversibility, side effects on dependent resources, or what happens if the zone is in use. Basic transparency is met but not enriched.

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: a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is well front-loaded with the action and requirements. Every word 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 delete tool with a guard flag and required confirmation, the description covers the essential usage constraints. No output schema exists, but return values for a delete are typically minimal. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or existence of the zone, but those are common for GTM tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its purpose.

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 description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. The description does highlight 'confirm' as a required boolean to confirm deletion, which gives semantic context. All other parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a GTM zone'). The prefix '[DELETE]' provides an immediate HTTP method hint. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like zones_get or zones_list.

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 prerequisites: 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_DELETES=true and confirm=true.' This tells the agent exactly when the tool can be used. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-destructive operations, but that is less critical for a delete tool.

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