gtm_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the default-to-configured-container behavior and the resolution output, but does not mention side effects, auth/session expectations, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one tight sentence with a concrete example and a behaviorally important default. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler.

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 is simple and the output mapping is provided despite no output schema. However, the role of connection_id and session_token is unexplained, and the lack of any exclusions or alternative routing leaves an agent to infer the full invocation context.

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 undocumented parameters. It explains public_id by example and hints at optionality through the default behavior, but connection_id and session_token are entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent without enough meaning for two of three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a clear resource ('GTM container publicId'), and explicitly states the output mapping (account_id/container_id/workspace_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_containers or ga4_resolve.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a GTM publicId or want the customer's configured container), and the default behavior is stated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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