Raw Tag Manager API call

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readOnly behavior. The description adds useful context: requests go through the same OAuth, rate limiter, and retries as other tools. It doesn't explicitly warn about destructive potential, but the annotation covers this, so the added detail earns a 4.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, path format, query arrays, and shared infrastructure. No wasted words.

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 generic raw API tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, path/query handling, and infrastructure behavior. With no output schema, it doesn't need to specify return values as they vary by endpoint. The examples and openWorldHint provide sufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description provides examples for path and query, but these largely echo the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no substantial new parameter meaning.

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 clearly states this is an escape hatch for calling any GTM API v2 path directly, with explicit examples of endpoints lacking dedicated tools. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly targeting endpoints without a dedicated tool.

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 explicitly says 'for endpoints without a dedicated tool', which implies not to use when a dedicated tool exists. It also lists example endpoints, providing clear context for when this tool is the right choice.

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