gtm_create_workspace

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no auth/permission requirements, no note on whether the new workspace is isolated from the default one, and no rate-limit or reversibility detail.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 4-param creation tool with half the parameters undocumented, the description omits where the workspace is created and any prerequisite listing of accounts/containers.

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 coverage is only 50% (account and container are documented, name and description are not). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented fields or clarify the account/container/name relationship needed to place the workspace correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a dedicated GTM workspace'), which is easy to distinguish from sibling read tools like gtm_list_workspaces. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with other mutating siblings such as gtm_sync_workspace or gtm_create_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?

'Prefer this before making automated changes' is a genuine when-to-use hint, giving the agent a workflow ordering rule. It stops short of naming alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to create a workspace, so 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.