Gtm Container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly marks combine and move_tag_id as destructive, notes that they require confirm=true, and marks lookup and snippet as read-only. This is critical transparency. It does not cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, but the most important safety-relevant behaviors are disclosed.

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 tightly written with a clear summary line and a bulleted list that separates actions. It front-loads the purpose and uses formatting to make each operation's requirements visually distinct. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (7 actions, 6 parameters), the description covers all actions and their parameter requirements thoroughly. It explains destructive vs. read-only nature and the confirm flag. Output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. It omits potential authentication or rate-limit details, but for a management tool this is a reasonable gap given the richness of the action-specific guidance.

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, and it does. It explains the meaning and usage of path, parent, params, and confirm in the context of specific actions, adding significant semantic value beyond the bare schema fields. For example, it clarifies that parent is for list/create, path for get/update/remove, and params for lookup with destinationId. This goes well beyond the generic schema.

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 explicitly states 'Manage GTM containers' and enumerates specific operations (CRUD, combine, lookup, move_tag_id, snippet). It clearly identifies the resource and the actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage other GTM entities like tags or accounts.

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 detailed guidance per action: which parameters are required (parent vs. path), when confirm=true is needed (destructive actions), and that lookup uses params with destinationId while requiring no parent/path. It implicitly routes the agent to the correct action based on intent, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools. This is strong usage guidance for a multi-action tool.

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