gtm_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists the operations without disclosing behavior such as side effects of update, required permissions, response format, or how accountId is used across actions. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and operation list. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no 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?

With three operations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what get or list return, how update behaves, or how accountId and config are used per action, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond reiterating the action parameter, which is already documented in the schema.

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 tool performs all account-related operations (get, list, update), specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gtm_container or gtm_workspace, which target other GTM resources.

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 clear context that this tool is for any account-related operation, implying it is the go-to for account actions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the distinction implicit.

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