Generate bulk-change CSV

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior context beyond that: the generated output is only a draft and must be verified against current platform data. This is a meaningful, non-redundant behavioral caveat.

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 compact sentence with two meaningful clauses and no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the key limitation, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 with one parameter and rich annotations, but the absence of any templateKey guidance is a significant gap, especially with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The draft/verification warning is helpful, but the definition is not fully complete for an agent that must construct a valid invocation.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, templateKey, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it. The text never mentions templateKey, how to obtain a valid value, or what templates are eligible, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool 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 clear verb and resource ('Generate safe CSV headers/examples') and adds that the output is a draft requiring verification. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gtm_list_bulk_templates or gtm_validate_bulk_change, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'draft templates require verification against a current platform export' gives some context about how the output should be used, implying a follow-up validation step. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention the likely sibling gtm_validate_bulk_change.

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