gtm_create_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds some useful context by specifying that the input must be a 'full GTM Trigger resource (JSON string)', implying a complete object rather than partial fields. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or what happens on validation failure. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and includes the key qualifier about the JSON input. There is no redundant wording or 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?

Given that this is a create operation with no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the expected structure of the trigger JSON, whether the created trigger is returned as a response, or how the tool integrates with GTM workspaces and containers. Users would need external documentation to use it effectively.

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 schema provides zero coverage for the four parameters. The description adds meaning only to trigger_json by clarifying it must be a full trigger resource, but account_id, container_id, and workspace_id remain undefined. While these IDs are self-explanatory by name, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage overall.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('trigger'), and clearly distinguishes the input format ('full GTM Trigger resource (JSON string)') from siblings like gtm_update_trigger or gtm_create_tag. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's 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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing workspace) or state that this is the correct tool for creating a new trigger as opposed to updating an existing one. With many similar create tools among siblings, this lack of context is a notable gap.

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