GTM: Create workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write in an open system. The description adds a meaningful nuance — that a workspace isolates changes from the live site — but says nothing about required permissions, workspace quotas, or what happens on name collision.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the isolation rationale second; no wasted wording. It is terse almost to a fault, but structurally sound.

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 mutation tool with four wholly undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition should say what the call returns (presumably a workspace ID that downstream tools like gtm_save_entity or gtm_validate_workspace require). That omission plus the total lack of parameter documentation leaves a real gap.

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 0% for all four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. Nothing explains the accountId/containerId hierarchy, name constraints, or the optional description field, leaving the agent to guess at the GTM resource hierarchy.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Creates a new workspace') that an agent can distinguish from gtm_list_workspaces and gtm_validate_workspace. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or a contrasting operation, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clause 'always bundle changes in a separate workspace, not in the default workspace of the live site' gives a workflow directive about where changes belong, which implies when to call this tool. However, no sibling alternatives (e.g., working within an existing workspace via gtm_save_entity) are named, and no prerequisites are stated.

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