Gtm Version

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does meaningful work: it labels live as read-only, marks publish/set_latest/undelete/remove as destructive, explicitly warns 'PUSHES LIVE', and requires confirm=true for destructive actions. It falls short of fully explaining the consequences of each destructive action (e.g., whether versions are permanently lost, what set_latest actually does), but the safety profile is clearly conveyed.

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 compact, scannable action list with zero filler; the one-line purpose is followed by dense, self-contained entries. Repetition of the path pattern is justified because it makes each action readable without cross-referencing, and every line 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?

For a 7-action, 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description handles action routing well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, params is completely unexplained, config lacks any structure, and action semantics like set_latest and undelete are not elaborated—gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 substantially: it maps path='<container>/versions/{id}' to each action, clarifies parent as an alternative for the live action, ties confirm=true to destructive actions, and shows config={...} for update. However, the params parameter is never mentioned, and the structure of config is left entirely open.

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 resource ('GTM container versions') and verb ('Manage'), then enumerates seven distinct actions (get, live, publish, set_latest, undelete, update, remove), each with an explicit path and behavior. This fully disambiguates it from siblings like gtm_version_header (headers only) and gtm_container, which cover a different resource.

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 action list implies usage scenarios—get for retrieval, live for the published version, publish for going live—and the destructive flags imply caution. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions or workspace context), and no routing to alternatives among the 17 sibling tools.

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