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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses cache purging, homepage re-checking, the consent-tool lock and that the lock cannot be bypassed, plugin-version requirements, and ambiguous timeout/unreachable outcomes. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive write tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the critical prerequisite, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is dense and lengthy, with some legal rationale that could be trimmed, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the detail.

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?

The tool is a destructive, consent-gated write operation, and the description covers prerequisites, exclusions, errors, consent blocking, and plugin requirements. Although an output schema exists, the description still helpfully names key return fields and failure states.

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 parameter meaning and does: gtm_container_id format GTM-XXXXXXX, empty string removes, omitted means no_changes, and invalid format yields hf_invalid_tracking_id. It also explains the optional workspace slug.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: embed or remove a GTM container on a WordPress site without touching theme files. It also explicitly separates this tool from the read-only sibling wp_tracking_status.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite (read wp_tracking_status first) and a clear when-not-to-use condition: if scan_hinweis is present, do not set the container because it may already load via a cookie banner. It also excludes GA4 and Meta Pixel configuration and routes those to wp_tracking_status / wp_site_health.

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