gtm_revert_trigger

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that – fingerprint protection – but leaves its behavior (what happens on mismatch, recoverability) unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is arguably too terse to be fully useful, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. However, for a mutation tool the description omits the central mechanic it alludes to (fingerprint protection) and gives no usage routing, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 75%, with triggerId undocumented in both schema and description; the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With most parameters already documented by the schema, this sits at the expected baseline but does not compensate for the triggerId gap.

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 specific verb (revert), resource (trigger), and scope (workspace changes), which cleanly distinguishes it from gtm_revert_tag and gtm_revert_variable. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying how it differs from gtm_update_trigger / gtm_delete_trigger.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite many close siblings (gtm_update_trigger, gtm_delete_trigger, gtm_revert_tag). The trailing 'with fingerprint protection' hints at a precondition but never explains what it means or when it matters.

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