GTM: Update workspace (sync)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-source nature is partly known. The description adds useful context that it ingests changes published elsewhere (another workspace or the GTM UI), which explains why it can surface conflicts. It stops short of saying whether local unpublished changes are preserved, overwritten, or whether the call can fail on conflict.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, when it is needed, and the follow-up action. The trigger condition is front-loaded in the second sentence and nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description still covers purpose, trigger, and next step, which is most of what an agent needs for a three-parameter sync call. The remaining gap is outcome behavior — what a successful sync returns and how partial failures or overwritten local edits are handled.

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?

All three parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId) are fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain each ID, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or interaction (e.g. whether account/container must match the workspace), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Pulls changes published in the meantime ... into the workspace') and scopes the source of those changes (another workspace or the GTM UI). This clearly separates it from siblings like gtm_workspace_status (which only reports state) and gtm_resolve_conflict (which handles the fallout).

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 trigger: use when gtm_workspace_status or gtm_create_version reports conflicts or an outdated state. It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool (gtm_resolve_conflict) after the sync, so both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are covered.

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