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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: confirm=false performs only a preview with nothing going live, while confirm=true creates a container version and publishes it. It also explains how workspace and container resolution work, which goes beyond the annotation set.

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 text is front-loaded with the core verb and consequence, then uses compact labeled clauses for safety and parameter resolution. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers safety, workspace/container resolution, and the publish workflow. It is nearly complete, missing only the meaning of the notes and version_name parameters.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm, workspace, and container semantics clearly, but leaves notes and version_name undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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 (publishes the GTM container/workspace) plus the operational consequence that new/edited tags will actually run on the site. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gtm_tag, create_gtm_workspace, and rollback_gtm_version.

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?

Explains when to use it (to push staged workspace changes live) and gives the key safety branch: confirm=false for preview, confirm=true to create and publish. It also references list_gtm_workspaces for the workspace path, but does not name when-not-to-use or direct alternatives like rollback_gtm_version.

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