gtm_quick_preview_workspace

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context: it creates a temporary preview, surfaces compiler/sync errors, and explicitly does not publish. This complements rather than repeats the annotations.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-publishing constraint appended as a useful qualifier. Every phrase 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 low-complexity, three-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no prose) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential behavior. Slight gap: it doesn't say whether compiling mutates workspace state or what the temporary preview resource is.

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 100%, and all three required parameters (account, container, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Compile a workspace into a temporary preview') plus the output ('report compiler/sync errors'), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It doesn't name sibling tools like gtm_sync_workspace or gtm_workspace_status, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the semantics.

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 phrase 'temporary preview' and 'never publishes' imply this is a dry-run validation step before publishing, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named (e.g. sync vs preview).

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