gtm_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists mutating operations (create, update, delete) which signals potential side effects, but it does not elaborate on consequences like permanent deletion, required permissions, or idempotency. This lack of depth leaves critical safety information undocumented.

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 immediately identifies the tool's purpose and lists all actions. Every word is used efficiently, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It communicates the core purpose and action list but omits guidance on when each action is appropriate, how config relates to create/update, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity, more detail would be expected, though the schema covers parameter definitions comprehensively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage. It does not clarify inter-parameter dependencies or action-specific requirements.

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 variable operations and explicitly enumerates the supported actions (get, list, create, update, delete). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_trigger, which handle different GTM entities.

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 implies usage for GTM variable management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name.

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