gtm.update_tagUpdates an existing Google Tag Manager tag using its path and specified fields, with a confirmation guard to prevent unintended changes.
Update an existing tag by path (guarded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| tag_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral context. The phrase '(guarded)' is a single, vague modifier that does not disclose critical operational traits like required permissions, error handling, or validation behavior.
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 a single, powerful sentence. It is extremely front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary words, making it maximally concise.
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 that it is a complex mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is extremely incomplete. It lacks details on the scope of updates, what 'guarded' implies, and any operational constraints necessary for a confident invocation.
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 0%. The description only mentions 'path' and 'fields' but provides no meaningful context or constraint on the nature of the data within those critical parameters, failing completely to compensate for the lack of schema detail.
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 action (Update), the resource (tag), and the primary identifier used for the operation (by path). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from creation or listing operations within the GTM scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gtm.create_tag. It is a simple statement of fact without context for usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.