Gtm Trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose that remove/revert are guarded by confirm=true, which hints at destructive behavior. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens on update/revert, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation-capable 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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and action set. The reference to gtm_tag is efficient, though slightly cryptic, and every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description still omits crucial invocation details for a generic action dispatcher. The agent knows which actions exist but not how to specify targets or configure them through path, parent, config, or params, making the definition incomplete for reliable use.

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 for explaining all six parameters. It partially does by enumerating valid action values and clarifying confirm, but path, config, params, and parent remain entirely unexplained. This is inadequate for an agent to construct valid calls confidently.

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 names the specific resource (GTM triggers) and scope (within a workspace), and provides an explicit action set: create, get, list, update, remove, revert. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other GTM resources, though 'Manage' is somewhat generic and the action semantics are borrowed from gtm_tag.

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 gives practical usage context by naming the workspace scope and stating that remove/revert require confirm=true. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gtm_tag or gtm_variable, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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