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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot: dry-run is the default, Google compiles the workspace and surfaces errors or merge conflicts, and the response enumerates the live-site diff. It also discloses that the default workspace is "Caybl changes" and that publishing it also ships anything else drafted there. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens to the prior live version or whether publishing is reversible beyond the rollback path.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the destination (LIVE site) and the two modes, then the dry-run behavior, then the confirmation gate. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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 zero-required-parameter destructive publish tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, defaults, side effects, error surfacing, and the human-confirmation workflow. An agent has everything needed to call this safely without opening the schema.

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 would be 3, but the description earns above that by explaining the semantics that matter: `version` means re-publish for rollback, `validateOnly` defaults to true and must be flipped deliberately, and `workspace` defaults to "Caybl changes". It doesn't add anything for `notes`, `versionName`, or `container`, but those are self-evident and already well documented 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?

Opens with a specific verb and destination ("Publish to the LIVE site") and then enumerates the two distinct modes: publishing a workspace's drafts as a new named version, or re-publishing an earlier version. This makes it immediately distinguishable from gtm_upsert_tag, gtm_pause_tag, and gtm_version_history, which are the adjacent tools an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use the `version` parameter when undoing a bad publish, otherwise publish a workspace. It also states a hard procedural gate — only call with validateOnly=false after the user has seen the dry-run list and agreed — which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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