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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the precondition that produces a need for sync, that unresolved conflicts are returned as a list rather than fixed, and the exact error shape for a malformed id. It stops short of saying what workspace state is overwritten or discarded by the sync — the one thing an agent should warn about given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the trigger condition, then the conflict behavior, then a compact parameter footnote. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing parameter notes read as a dense addendum rather than being integrated into the flow.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, trigger, post-conditions, and both parameters. The remaining hole is the data-loss implication of a destructive sync, which an agent would need before invoking it on a workspace with unpublished edits.

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 and largely does: `workspace_id` is documented as strictly numeric with a named failure mode ({"error":"invalid_id"}), and `workspace` is documented as a customer slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. The slug's expected format/example is still missing, 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 (sync the GTM workspace to the latest container version) and immediately ties it to a concrete precondition in a sibling tool (gtm_create_version failing with merge_conflict). An agent can distinguish it from gtm_create_version, gtm_workspace_status and gtm_list_workspaces 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition (after a merge_conflict from gtm_create_version) and states the follow-up path (remaining conflicts must be resolved in the GTM UI, not via this tool). It also states the conditional optionality of `workspace` (only needed when multiple workspaces exist).

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