gtm_create_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key outputs (containerVersion, containerVersionId, compiler errors) and the critical non-publishing behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the workspace after freezing, which would add depth. Still, the most important behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then returns value and a critical exclusion. There is zero wasted wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 explains the return value (including containerVersionId and compiler errors) despite lacking an output schema. It also covers the non-publishing aspect and next steps. However, it does not explain parameter semantics or edge cases (e.g., prerequisites, notes field), leaving some gaps for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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%, and the description provides no additional information about the parameters (name, notes, account_id, container_id, workspace_id). The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Freeze the current workspace into a new container version'), identifies the resource (container version), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool gtm_publish_version by explicitly noting it does NOT publish. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with clear differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to freeze/version a workspace) and what to do next ('use gtm_publish_version next'). It also clarifies what it does not do ('This does NOT publish'), providing clear usage context and an explicit alternative.

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