GTM: Publish version (LIVE)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by spelling out the live-impact ('goes live on the live website immediately'), enumerating exactly what the non-confirming preview returns (version, current live version, tag/trigger/variable diffs, rollback availability), and describing the rollback strategy. That is the context an agent needs to sequence a destructive action safely.

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?

Front-loaded with the consequence of the call, then the two-step protocol, then rollback. The telegraphic fragments ('rollback yes/no') are dense but each sentence carries operational value; only the punctuation style slightly hurts readability.

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 destructive, open-world, four-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers impact, the confirmation gate, the preview contents, and rollback guidance — nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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%: confirm and containerVersionId are documented in the schema, while accountId and containerId are not described anywhere. The description reinforces the confirm gate semantics and the 'rollback yes/no' preview field, adding meaning beyond the schema, but it does not fill in the two undocumented identifier parameters.

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 ('Publishes a container version') plus the immediate consequence 'goes live on the live website immediately', which clearly separates it from gtm_create_version and gtm_export_version among the siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: calling without confirm yields a preview only, and confirm=true is allowed only after explicit human approval. It also names the rollback path ('publish an older version from gtm_list_versions'), so both the when and the when-not are covered.

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