versions_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly labels the tool as a write operation, explains the effect (taking a snapshot into a versioned checkpoint), and notes prerequisites. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value without repetition or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core action and a critical prerequisite (confirm=true). However, it does not describe what the tool returns or any post-creation behavior, which would 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?

Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description only adds semantic value for one parameter (confirm must be true). It does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides, leaving gaps for name, notes, accountId, containerId, workspaceId.

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 creates a new GTM container version from a workspace, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from 'publish' by noting it creates a checkpoint without publishing, which differentiates it from sibling tools like versions_publish.

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 mentions prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true, confirm=true) and notes this creates a snapshot without publishing, implying when to use it versus publishing tools. However, it could more directly compare with siblings like workspace_create_version_and_publish.

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