gtm_create_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that a tag is created without mentioning workspace prerequisites, name/type validation, trigger ID requirements, whether the tag is immediately active, or what the response contains. It implies mutation but adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple create operation with a well-structured schema and 75% parameter coverage, the description plus schema is minimally viable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of return values or prerequisites, there are clear gaps an agent must infer, especially around workspace context and the nested tag object.

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 75%, and the three ID parameters are already described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify the nested 'tag' object structure beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does most of the documentation work.

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 states a specific verb ('Creates'), a concrete resource ('a new tag'), and the scope ('in a GTM workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_create_trigger and gtm_create_variable, and the word 'new' separates it from update/delete operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gtm_list_tags, gtm_update_tag, or gtm_create_trigger. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so an agent gets no help selecting between related GTM tools.

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