gtm_container

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

The description does not disclose the effects of each operation, such as the destructive nature of delete or permission requirements for create/update. With no annotations to compensate, an agent cannot infer the safety profile or expected behavior beyond the action names.

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 one-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but it sacrifices explanatory depth. It contains no fluff, so it earns a 4 for conciseness, though it is under-informative.

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 multi-action tool with nested config objects and no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient. It lacks operation-specific details, prerequisites, return values, and any guidance on config structure.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and enum values, and the description provides no additional semantic context—it just repeats the action list. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the tool as handling container operations and enumerates the supported actions (get, list, create, update, delete). This is clearer than a tautology but remains generic with the weak verb 'performs' and lacks specific details about the container resource scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to select this tool over sibling tools like gtm_account or gtm_workspace, nor which action to choose for a given scenario. The description simply lists operations without any contextual recommendations.

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