gtm_create_tag

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

The description clarifies that tag_json must be the full GTM Tag resource, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as return values, validation errors, idempotency, required GTM permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is under-informative.

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 concise, with one sentence for the action and one for the parameter example. All content is relevant, no fluff.

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?

The description gives a helpful example of the primary parameter, making the resource shape concrete. But it does not mention return values, error handling, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without a complete picture for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

The description explains the complex tag_json parameter with a concrete example, which is valuable. However, it provides no additional meaning for account_id, container_id, and workspace_id beyond their schema titles, and schema coverage is 0%. The IDs are self-explanatory but the description could have at least specified their roles.

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 ('Create a tag') and the resource (tag). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_trigger and create_variable by naming the specific resource. The example further reinforces the purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or after-effects. The context implies creation, but there is no discussion of required prior setup (e.g., account/container/workspace IDs) or when to prefer this over gtm_update_tag.

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