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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it explains the concrete consequence (replaces the current live version on the customer site), the return value published_version_id, and the important failure semantic that on error=compiler_error nothing was published. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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 live-impact warning is front-loaded and every sentence carries information. It is telegraphic and dense rather than prose, which trades a bit of readability for information density.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the danger, parameter sourcing, the error case, and the verification path. 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and does: version_id is purely numeric, otherwise {"error":"invalid_id"}, and workspace is a customer workspace slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. exact slug format).

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+resource (publish a version) and immediately the scope: it replaces the live version on the customer's website. That distinguishes it from gtm_create_version and gtm_list_versions without any schema inspection.

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 the agent: version_id comes from gtm_create_version or gtm_list_versions, and the live state can be verified afterwards with gtm_container_info (live_version_id). It also gives the prerequisite for the optional workspace parameter.

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