clients_create

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

The description discloses the write operation nature and the required configuration flags, adding behavioral context beyond the parameter schema. It explains that a full resource JSON is expected in bodyJson, but does not detail what happens upon success or failure.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a condition. It is front-loaded with the key signal '[WRITE]' and wastes no words.

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?

Given no output schema and 5 required parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisites, and parameter usage. It is largely complete, though mentioning the return value would slightly improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description reinforces that bodyJson should be a full resource JSON string and that confirm must be true, adding minimal extra meaning beyond 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 it creates a new GTM client with the explicit '[WRITE]' prefix and the verb 'Create', distinguishing it from update, delete, and read sibling tools like clients_update, clients_delete, and clients_get.

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 conditions for usage: requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. This tells the agent when the tool is applicable and what prerequisites are needed, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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