Create GTM Version

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description does not mention mutation of the workspace, required permissions, or side effects like creating a version that may affect other resources. It does state a precondition (workspace changes / merge conflicts) and naming is straightforward. Some behavioral transparency is present through the annotations but the description itself adds limited extra context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and avoids all fluff or repetition. It reads naturally and efficiently.

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 has 5 fully-described parameters, annotations for mutability, and a necessary precondition is explained. Similar tools exist in the sibling list (e.g., sync, list versions, publish, create workspace), providing useful context. It does not cover error responses, permission requirements, or what exactly occurs on merge/publish - but as a moderate create tool with a schema this is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), e.g., account ID, container ID, workspace ID, version name/notes, and the explicit workspace precondition. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema since the schema already fully documents each field; the precondition about merge conflicts is the only notable addition.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create ... version from a workspace's changes') and states the workspace must contain changes and be free of merge conflicts. It clearly establishes the core operation but does not explicitly distinguish it from listing or publishing versions.

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 conveys prerequisites (workspace with changes, no merge conflicts) and implies usage for creating a version from a workspace, but it does not give explicit directions on when to choose this tool over siblings like gtm_publish_version or gtm_get_version.

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