gtm_create_constant_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', implying a mutation, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, confirmation requirements, or how the confirm parameter works. It also doesn't explain how account/container/workspace context affects the operation. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the use case is concise. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the required context fields (account_id, container_id, workspace_id), the confirm flag, or how these interact. While an output schema exists, it doesn't cover the input semantics. The agent would struggle to fill all parameters correctly based solely on this description.

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. It hints that the 'value' should be an ID ('any id used in more than one tag'), but it does not explain the purpose of 'name', 'confirm', or the account/container/workspace parameters. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what the schema titles already imply.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a Constant variable') and identifies the specific resource type ('type c'). It also provides a concrete use case (IDs reused across tags). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gtm_create_datalayer_variable, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use it: 'Worth doing for any id used in more than one tag', with examples (GA4 measurement id, Ads conversion id). This is a strong contextual trigger. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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