Plan a GTM workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "nothing is written" and "Low risk: a workspace changes nothing live." It adds the important non-obvious caveat "No automatic rollback," though it doesn't address the non-idempotent hint (repeated-call 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?

Information is front-loaded and every clause carries weight (plan semantics, write scope, risk, apply path, rollback caveat). It's slightly run-on with stacked parentheticals, which costs a point but no sentence is filler.

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 planning tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The plan/apply boundary and the absence of output-schema expectations are handled adequately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, client_id, and description with useful detail (uniqueness, when client_id is required). The description adds no parameter-level syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a dedicated workspace in the client's GTM container") and immediately clarifies the planning semantics, so an agent can distinguish it from the gtm_plan_tag/trigger/variable_upsert siblings. The parenthetical "PLAN (nothing is written)" front-loads what the tool actually does.

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 explicit sequencing: plan here first, then "Apply with google_apply after the user agreed," naming the concrete alternative. It also states the boundary that the Default Workspace is never written, leaving nothing to inference.

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