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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral context by stating the trigger is staged and never published, which materially affects what an agent should expect after creation.

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 the staged/never-published constraint and then moves into parameter-specific guidance. It is mostly efficient, though the trailing revision string adds minor noise without helping invocation.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety traits do not need full description treatment. Still, with 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important invocation details such as container semantics and valid trigger type values incomplete.

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 has to carry parameter meaning. It explains event_name, custom_event_filter, filter, auto_event_filter, and parameter, but it leaves required fields name, container, and especially the type values underexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: create a GTM trigger. It also gives the critical scope up front: the trigger is STAGED in the managed AdCopilot workspace and never published, which distinguishes it from update/list trigger siblings.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for CUSTOM_EVENT triggers and explains how event_name relates to custom_event_filter, which is useful inside the tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over gtm_update_trigger, gtm_list_triggers, or gtm_create_tag, so overall usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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