gtm_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it performs trigger operations; it does not mention side effects (e.g., delete is destructive), required parameters per operation, return values, or any other behavioral context. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence with a clear list of operations, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat sparse for a multi-action tool, but it earns a high score for being free of fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters, nested config objects, and multiple actions, yet the description provides no operational guidance (e.g., which parameters apply to which action) or return value details. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It merely repeats the action enum values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource ('trigger') and enumerates the specific operations (get, list, create, update, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_variable by naming the trigger resource explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists operations without any context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent receives no decision hints.

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