Gtm Destination

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly marks the 'link' action as '(destructive)' and notes that Google deprecated destination linking via API, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose read-only nature of list/get, error behavior, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond the parent container. The deprecation warning is a positive, but coverage is incomplete for a multi-action tool.

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, structured as an action list with inline examples, and avoids redundancy. The deprecation note is included without fluff. The front-loaded 'Manage GTM destinations' quickly establishes scope, and the action breakdown is easy to scan. Minor issue: the '(destructive)' note is placed oddly at the end of the link line, but overall it's efficient.

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 multi-action tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description provides the action semantics but leaves gaps. It does not explain the 'config' parameter, nor does it cover potential actions beyond the three listed. While an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The deprecation note is helpful but incomplete for full autonomous usage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains parameter usage for actions: parent for list, path for get, and parent, params, confirm for link. However, the 'config' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description does not define the exact structure or required fields for 'params' beyond an example. It adds meaningful context for some parameters but fails to cover all.

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 clear purpose: 'Manage GTM destinations' and enumerates three specific actions (list, get, link) with resource scope. The sibling tools are for other GTM resources (container, tag, etc.), so the tool's domain is unambiguous. Each action is a specific verb+resource combination, and the syntax examples clarify what it does.

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 concrete usage instructions for each action, e.g., 'list: parent='<container>'' and 'get: path='<container>/destinations/{id}''. It implicitly communicates that this tool is for destination management, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The action-level guidance is strong, but high-level selection context is absent.

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