Gtm Workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels destructive actions with '(destructive)' and read-only actions with '(read-only)', and notes that destructive actions require confirm=true. This is a strong signal for an agent about safety. However, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond destruction (e.g., what happens on remove, whether sync overwrites changes) or any authentication or rate-limit requirements. The transparency is decent but not exhaustive.

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 structured with a short purpose sentence followed by a bulleted list of operations, which is easy to scan. It front-loads the main purpose and then enumerates operations with their specific parameter patterns. While somewhat dense, it avoids fluff and each line conveys a distinct behavior. The use of symbols like '->' for read-only outputs is concise. It earns a 4 for efficiency and organization, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool has six parameters, multiple actions, and some are destructive, so a complete description is important. The description covers the main operations and their safety, but leaves gaps: it does not explain what 'sync' and 'resolve_conflict' actually do in behavioral terms, only that they are destructive. It also omits the 'params' parameter entirely. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the action-specific requirements are incomplete (e.g., resolve_conflict's config is unspecified). For an agent to correctly invoke all actions, more detail is needed.

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 missing parameter meaning. It does explain key parameters in context: path is the workspace identifier, parent is the container, config carries action-specific data (e.g., {name,notes} for create_version), and confirm is required for destructive actions. However, it never mentions the 'params' parameter, and config for resolve_conflict is left as '{...}' without details. The action parameter is implied by the listed actions but not formally described. Thus, the description adds meaning for most but not all parameters, leaving gaps.

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's purpose: 'Manage GTM workspaces.' It then enumerates standard CRUD operations and additional workspace-specific actions (create_version, get_status, sync, quick_preview, resolve_conflict), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle other GTM entities like containers, tags, or triggers. The verb 'manage' plus the resource 'GTM workspaces' and the action list leave no ambiguity about scope.

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 clear context for each action, including required parameters and whether an action is destructive or read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling (e.g., 'use gtm_container for containers'). The implicit distinction via the resource name and the action list is clear enough, but no direct alternative routing is given. The per-action usage details (e.g., 'create_version requires path and config') effectively guide invocation.

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