gtag_config_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the write nature and confirm requirement, but does not disclose details like whether the update is full replacement (implied by 'full resource'), idempotency, or behavior of the fingerprint parameter. Some behavioral context is missing.

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: two sentences. The [WRITE] prefix immediately signals a mutation. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, prerequisites, and input format. No extraneous text.

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 moderate complexity (7 params), the description lacks details about return values or error handling. It covers prerequisites and input format but omits behavioral aftereffects. Adequate but not complete for a write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just noting the full resource requirement for bodyJson. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, so no deduction.

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 updates an existing GTM gtag config, with verb 'update' and resource specified. Among sibling tools like gtag_config_create and gtag_config_delete, this is unambiguously distinct.

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 explicitly states required conditions: GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. This gives clear guidance on when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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