Publish GTM Version

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context by stating that it 'replaces the currently live container configuration' and makes it 'served to all visitors', which clarifies the impact beyond the annotation. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It clearly communicates the action and its consequence without fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and rich schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and effect. It does not mention potential error conditions or preconditions (e.g., version must be a draft), but this is a minor gap for a straightforward publish action.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves, which are self-explanatory as account, container, and version IDs.

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 the tool's purpose: publishing a container version to make it the live version. It uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('container version'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_create_version (which creates a version) and gtm_get_live_version (which retrieves the live 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to replace the live version) and notes the effect, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for non-use. The clarity of purpose partially compensates, but it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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