Sync GTM Workspace

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds that it reports merge conflicts, which is not implied by the annotations. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, though it does not detail other side effects like modifying workspace state.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words, clear structure, and directly communicate the purpose and behavior.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and mentions merge conflict reporting. It does not explain the return value in detail, but that is not required since it's a simple sync action. It lacks details about failure modes, but that is acceptable for this 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?

The schema describes all three parameters with basic labels ('The GTM account ID', etc.), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning or relationships between these IDs, so it stays at the baseline for full coverage.

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 function: 'Sync a workspace to the latest container version' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/create/delete by indicating an update-like operation.

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?

It explains when to use it ('pulling in changes published since the workspace was created') and mentions the merge conflict reporting, giving context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_workspace_status or update operations, so it's not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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