List detected source updates

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful workflow context by noting the listed updates are reviewable and that approval/application is out of scope, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then adds the key limitation. There is no wasted text or redundant restating of the title.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description captures the core purpose and read-only limitation. However, it leaves important context unclear, such as what fields each returned update contains, how connectorKey affects results, and what each status value means in the reconciliation workflow.

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 provides no explanation of limit, status, or connectorKey semantics beyond the bare schema defaults and enums. The phrase 'reviewable changes' loosely relates to status, but it does not meaningfully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('reviewable changes detected by source reconciliation'), and explicitly scopes what the tool cannot do ('cannot approve or apply them'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gtm_validate_bulk_change or gtm_list_bulk_templates.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to review source-reconciliation changes, and it gives one exclusion: it cannot approve or apply them. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-to-use conditions, leaving routing partially to inference.

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