Workspace status (changes & conflicts)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered; the description adds substantive context beyond that — it tells the agent what is actually returned (pending changes plus conflicts) and discloses the caching behavior of the Default Workspace lookup. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. invalid or missing workspace), which keeps it at 4.

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 payload is front-loaded, followed by the usage cue, then parameter formats — a sensible order with no filler. It is written in compressed fragments with stacked parentheticals, which is dense but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present it correctly avoids detailing return structure, and annotations handle the safety profile, so the remaining burden is params and usage — both covered. The one gap is failure modes (workspace not found, permission on linked destinations), which matters for an openWorld read against a live API.

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%, so the description must carry the load and it does: 'container' is documented with accepted forms (GTM-XXXXXXX, linked G-/AW- destination id, or accounts/<a>/containers/<c> API path) and 'workspace_id' is documented as numeric with an explicit omit-to-default behavior plus its caching side effect. Nothing an agent needs to build a valid call is missing.

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The description names the exact resource and the exact payload: 'Unpublished changes and merge conflicts of a workspace', which distinguishes it from gtm_list_workspaces (lists workspaces) and gtm_get_version (published versions). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it stops just short of the top mark.

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?

'run before gtm_create_version' gives an explicit sequencing cue and names the sibling it gates, which is real when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool is unnecessary (e.g. if you only want the workspace list or published version state), so it lacks the exclusions a 5 requires.

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