gtm_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not mention that delete is destructive, update modifies state, or any permission or authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that includes mutation actions.

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 that is concise and free of filler. It front-loads the purpose (performs workspace operations) and enumerates the supported actions efficiently. However, it is under-specified in terms of detail, which limits it slightly from a perfect score.

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 5 parameters (including a nested config object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain what config contains, the difference between get and list, return values, error handling, or any side effects. The tool complexity demands more than a one-line summary.

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%, as all five parameters have descriptions (action, config, accountId, containerId, workspaceId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond reiterating the action list; the schema already documents parameter purposes, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool performs workspace operations with a list of specific actions (get, list, create, update, delete), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools via the 'workspace' resource, though it doesn't elaborate on what a workspace is or the context of these operations.

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 workspace CRUD operations but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tool names clearly indicate different resources, but the description does not state 'use this for workspace management' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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