GTM: Back up version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that output is materialized as a local JSON file (a real side effect worth knowing given readOnlyHint), but it omits where the file lands, how it is named from 'label', whether an existing backup is overwritten, and how to retrieve it later via backup_list/backup_read.

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 default behavior in parentheses — no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool with a filesystem side effect, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With four flat parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description covers the essential what and default target. Missing pieces — where the JSON file is written and how it relates to backup_list/backup_read — are meaningful but secondary for a backup call.

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 50%: label and containerVersionId carry their own descriptions, including the 'live' default that the tool description merely repeats. accountId and containerId are undocumented in both places, and the description adds no format, ID-discovery, or naming-semantics detail to compensate for that gap.

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 (backs up) and resource (a container version) plus the result (a local JSON file), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling reads like gtm_list_versions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from gtm_export_container or gtm_export_workspace, which sound near-identical in intent.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it when you want a backup of a version, and the parenthetical tells you the live version is the default target. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the very similar export_container / export_workspace siblings, so the agent must infer which of these three to pick.

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