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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation warning is covered. The description usefully explains what is reverted (draft → live version) and that new items are dropped, but does not disclose whether the change is reversible, whether publishing is required afterwards, or what happens if no draft exists.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the clarifying parenthetical. No filler.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with six params and no output schema, the definition covers the what but omits post-revert state (does it need publishing?), error behavior when nothing is draft, and confirmation semantics. Adequate but 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 coverage is 67% and the schema documents container, workspace, folder, and language defaults, plus the entity enum. The description only implicitly identifies entity and name ('one tag, trigger or variable'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: reverting a single tag/trigger/variable in the GTM workspace draft to its live version. It distinguishes itself from publish/create siblings by scoping to one item and clarifying 'undo an unpublished edit, or drop a newly added item'. It does not explicitly name siblings like gtm_remove or gtm_update_tag, but the scope is clear.

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 parenthetical gives two concrete scenarios (undo an edit, drop a newly added item), which implies usage. However, it never says when to use gtm_remove or gtm_update_tag instead, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an unpublished change to exist.

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