Create tag (🟡 write)

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, and the description adds the critical safety fact that dry_run=true previews only — that is real context beyond the annotations. It also explains type coercion of the parameters dict, though it doesn't cover what happens on a real write or container/workspace resolution.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the create action and type codes come first, then parameter formatting, then trigger guidance, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on `parameters` clause is heavier than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the core create path is covered. However, for an 11-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained workspace/container targeting and blocking-trigger semantics leave real gaps.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for `type`, `parameters`, `dry_run`, and implicitly `firing_trigger_ids`, but leaves `container`, `workspace_id`, `tag_firing_option`, `blocking_trigger_ids`, `paused`, and `notes` entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create any tag type in the workspace') and immediately qualifies it with the `type` code list. It explicitly names the sibling to route GA4 event tags to, so an agent can distinguish it from gtm_create_ga4_event_tag without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing ('For GA4 event tags prefer gtm_create_ga4_event_tag') plus operational guidance (All Pages trigger id 2147479553, dry_run defaults to preview). It does not mention the update path (gtm_update_tag) for existing tags, so the when-not-to-use case is incomplete.

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