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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context the agent could not infer: GTM deletes the source workspace, publishing does not occur, the return fields (version_id, new_workspace_id, tag_count), and the exact error enum (merge_conflict | compiler_error | create_version_failed). This is exactly the kind of destructive-side-effect disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the destructive constraint and the publish disclaimer first. Every sentence carries information (returns, errors, ID format), though the density and mixed German/field-name style makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 a destructive mutation with 0% schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, side effects, sibling routing, return shape, and error modes. Even though an output schema exists, the inline return summary is correct and nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does for the risky fields: workspace_id must be purely numeric (else invalid_id) and workspace is an optional slug used when multiple workspaces exist. It does not explain name or notes semantics, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Workspace in eine neue Version snapshotten') and immediately disambiguates from publishing, naming gtm_publish_version. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it does not do without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes alternatives and preconditions: on merge_conflict call gtm_sync_workspace first, publishing is a separate step via gtm_publish_version, and note the source workspace is deleted so follow-ups use new_workspace_id or gtm_list_workspaces. This is close to ideal when-to-use guidance.

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