gtm_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions pagination for list but does not describe destructive actions like 'remove' or 'revert', auth requirements, idempotency, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple write operations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose with the action list. It is efficient and avoids waste, though it could briefly structure action-specific details for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, multiple actions) and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, and action-specific behavior. Users need more context to understand what each action returns or requires.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'list' returning up to itemsPerPage items, but otherwise does not provide meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It meets the minimum but does not compensate for any gaps.

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?

The description clearly states 'performs all client operations' and lists the specific actions (create, get, list, update, remove, revert), making it distinct from sibling tools like gtm_tag or gtm_container. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and enumerates the operations.

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 description implies usage for client management via the action list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gtm_tag for tags). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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