gtm_publish_version

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the action's immediate global impact, irreversibility, and prerequisite conditions (GTM_ALLOW_PUBLISH, confirm=true, Publish permission). This is exemplary disclosure for a potentially destructive 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 three terse sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers side effects and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an inherently risky publish operation, the description covers the essential semantics: immediate effect, irreversibility, and required permissions. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The main omission is clarification of account_id and container_id, but these are standard nullable GTM identifiers with defaults.

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 only clarifies that confirm must be true and implies version_id identifies the version to publish. It does not explain account_id or container_id at all. Given four parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 clear, specific action: 'Publish a container version to live traffic.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling GTM tools like gtm_create_version, gtm_get_version, and gtm_list_versions, which all involve versions but not publishing to live traffic.

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 provides concrete usage context: it takes effect immediately, has no staging step, and no undo except publishing an earlier version. It also directs the agent to first use get_live_version to note the current live version, and it lists required environment variables and permissions. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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