gtm_create_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the operation is a non-publishing freeze, and notes are the only audit trail. However, it does not explain the confirm parameter, prerequisites, permission needs, or what happens to the existing workspace.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first word, and the subsequent sentences add essential behavioral and workflow context without redundancy.

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 description covers the core workflow distinction and the purpose of notes, but leaves the confirm parameter and account/container/workspace scoping entirely to the schema. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing parameter semantics make the description only partially complete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 needed to compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only gives semantic guidance for notes ('Write real notes'), leaving name, confirm, account_id, container_id, and workspace_id unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple ID parameters and a confirm flag.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Snapshot a workspace into a container version.' It clearly differentiates from sibling operations like gtm_publish_version and gtm_list_versions by stating it does not publish and freezes the workspace for later review or rollback.

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 clearly situates when to use the tool: before review, publishing, or rollback. It explicitly states what the tool does not do ('This does not publish'), giving a useful exclusion, though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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