GTM: Create version

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds the crucial nuance that the created version is not yet live and that a compilerError flag means the workspace is broken. With no output schema, it sensibly surfaces the two return signals (containerVersionId, compilerError). It doesn't say whether the new version persists if compilation fails.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the parenthetical and the error rule are compact. The telegraphic "compilerError=true means:" phrasing is slightly compressed but still parseable.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key success artifact and the main failure mode. What's missing is minor: how the returned version relates to existing versions, and whether a failed compile leaves an unusable version behind.

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 accountId, containerId, workspaceId, name and notes are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, which is acceptable given full schema coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a container version from the workspace") and immediately scopes it with "NOT live yet", which separates it from gtm_publish_version and gtm_export_version among the siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the step that feeds gtm_publish_version and warns not to publish when compilerError=true, which is real when/when-not guidance. It doesn't mention gtm_validate_workspace as an optional pre-check, leaving a small gap in routing.

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