Gtm Variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that remove/revert require confirm=true, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or other operational details. The description is minimal and does not provide rich behavioral context beyond the confirm requirement, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point: purpose, scope, and a critical behavioral requirement. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 there is an output schema, return format is not necessary, but the tool has 6 parameters and 1 required. The description provides only the action set and confirm requirement, leaving the roles of path, config, params, and parent undocumented. For a tool with this complexity, the description is too thin to allow an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge. It is not complete enough.

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. It only addresses the confirm parameter (implicitly via the confirm=true requirement) and implies the action parameter takes the listed actions. But it does not explain path, config, params, or parent. With six parameters and minimal compensation, this is a significant gap. The description adds limited value beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, so a score of 2 reflects insufficient elaboration.

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 the tool manages GTM variables within a workspace, and enumerates the exact action set (create, get, list, update, remove, revert). It explicitly distinguishes itself from gtm_tag by naming the sibling and indicating it applies to variables. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 implies usage by naming the resource (variables) and referencing the sibling gtm_tag as having the same actions. An agent can infer to use this for variables and gtm_tag for tags. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives beyond the tag reference, so it is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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