gtm_create_version

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic mutation — creating a version — without mentioning side effects on the workspace, whether versions are immutable snapshots, whether an existing draft version is replaced, or what the response contains. For a state-changing operation, this is a material gap.

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 with zero fluff — the verb 'Creats' leads and every word carries meaning. It is appropriately terse but borders on under-specification given five parameters and no annotation support, so it does not quite reach the standard of a two-sentence definition that also routes to alternatives.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent is not told what the call returns, whether the new version becomes the draft/latest version, or what preconditions apply (e.g., workspace must have unpublished changes). The sibling set includes gtm_publish_version and gtm_get_live_version, so the workflow position of this step is left entirely to inference.

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 80%: accountId, containerId, workspaceId, and name are already described in the schema, leaving only 'notes' undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than higher. The 'from a workspace' phrasing merely restates the workspaceId schema description.

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 and resource: 'Creates a new container version from a workspace.' This clearly separates it from read/list siblings like gtm_list_versions, gtm_get_version, and gtm_get_live_version. It does not explicitly differentiate from gtm_publish_version, the closest behavioral sibling, but the create-versus-publish distinction is reasonably inferable from the 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the workspace containing changes to capture), no reference to gtm_publish_version as the follow-on step, and no exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the workflow position entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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