Gtm.Create Version

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it only says "(guarded)" without explaining what that means operationally (presumably the confirm parameter acts as a safety gate). It does not state required permissions, whether the freeze is reversible, or whether prior working state is destroyed. Output schema exists, so return values need not be covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the input, and the output; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical "(guarded)" is a wasted placeholder rather than useful compression, which keeps it from a 5.

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 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: confirmation semantics, auth/permission needs, and side effects are all missing. The output schema covers the response, but the preconditions for safe invocation do not.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. "workspace" and "version" loosely map to workspace_path and name, but the non-obvious confirm parameter (nullable, defaults to null, and the crux of "guarded") is never explained — the agent must guess whether it is a confirmation token, a dry-run flag, or something else.

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?

"Freeze a workspace into a new container version" gives a specific verb (freeze/create), the resource (container version) and the input scope (workspace). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gtm.publish_version, which is a different action on versions. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus gtm.publish_version or gtm.list_versions, and no prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be validated, container must exist). The only hint is the parenthetical "(guarded)", which is never elaborated into a condition an agent can act on.

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