gtm_update_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an update uses a 'full GTM Tag resource', indicating a complete replacement rather than a partial patch. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No redundant words, every part adds value.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'tag_json' is a full GTM Tag resource, but does not clarify account_id, container_id, workspace_id, or tag_id beyond their names. With five params and only one explained, it falls short.

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 operation ('Update an existing tag') and the resource type ('full GTM Tag resource'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gtm_create_tag and gtm_delete_tag by specifying 'existing' and the update verb.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for updating an existing tag, which implies using it when a tag already exists and needs modification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing' wording differentiates from create/delete operations.

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