gtm_publish_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the impactful nature of the action ('affects the live site') and the confirm requirement, which are critical behavioral details. It does not describe response format or reversibility, but the core warning is present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the critical requirement and rationale.

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 straightforward publish operation, the description covers the purpose and the key prerequisite. It omits details about return values or post-publish behavior, but with no output schema and a simple action, this is adequate.

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%. The description only clarifies the confirm parameter ('Requires confirm=true'), but provides no additional meaning for account_id, container_id, version_id, leaving those to rely solely on their names. This is insufficient compensation for a multi-parameter tool.

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 'Publish a container version to live' specifies the action (publish), object (container version), and destination (live). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_create_version and gtm_get_live_version.

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 states that confirm=true is required because publishing affects the live site, providing clear context on when to use this tool and the necessary invocation flag. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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