Gtm Account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates that 'update' is a mutation but does not disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, response formats, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies resources, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is concise and well-structured with bullet points. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and each action is listed with its path pattern. There is no redundant filler; every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more organized by grouping parameters under each action.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are handled. The description covers the three main operations and their path patterns, which is essential for invocation. However, it lacks explanation of the 'params' parameter, authentication requirements, and error handling. For a tool with five parameters and three actions, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It partially explains 'path' (as 'accounts/{accountId}') and 'config' (as a configuration object) but completely ignores 'params' and 'parent'. The 'params' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving agents uncertain about its purpose.

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 'Manage GTM accounts' and enumerates three specific actions (list, get, update) with path patterns. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on accounts, though it does not explicitly contrast with container/tag tools. The verb and resource are specific, but sibling differentiation is only implicit via the resource name.

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 some usage hints, such as 'list: no parent needed' and path patterns for get/update. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools (e.g., gtm_container) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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