Modify an existing Google Tag Manager tag by its ID to adjust settings or fix configuration issues, ensuring the tag matches your updated requirements.
Update an existing GTM tag by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| tag_id | Yes | ||
| account_id | Yes | ||
| container_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes | ||
| connection_id | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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, but it only conveys that a tag will be updated. It does not explain whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether it requires a draft workspace, whether it affects published versions, or what happens if the tag does not exist.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word is purposeful, achieving maximum conciseness while still identifying the operation and target.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with 5 required parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of the id parameters, the structure of the tag object, or any behavioral implications, leaving the agent to guess.
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% and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The phrase 'by id' is ambiguous among the four id fields in the schema (account_id, container_id, workspace_id, tag_id), and the required nested 'tag' object is entirely undocumented.
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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('GTM tag'), and the targeting mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gtm_create_tag, gtm_update_trigger, and gtm_update_variable, even without naming them.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as gtm_create_tag or other update tools. The description neither states preconditions nor excludes scenarios, so the agent receives no routing or decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.