gtm_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses one behavioral detail: the 'list' action returns up to 50 items per page. It does not mention side effects (e.g., 'remove' is destructive), authorization requirements, or other nontrivial behaviors. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple actions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently lists the operations, and the second adds a specific behavioral detail. Ideal conciseness for a tool description.

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 tool's complexity (6 actions, 8 parameters, a nested configuration object), the description is too brief. It does not explain the different actions' behaviors, the role of required parameters (accountId, containerId, action), or how to use the createOrUpdateConfig object. Without an output schema, the return values are not described, which is a 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only the note about 'list' returning up to 50 items per page, which relates to the itemsPerPage parameter but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool performs all environment operations and lists them (create, get, list, update, remove, reauthorize). This differentiates it from sibling tools which are for other GTM resources (e.g., gtm_container, gtm_tag). However, the phrasing 'performs all environment operations' is slightly vague without the explicit list, but overall it is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain which action to choose for specific scenarios (e.g., when to use create vs update) nor does it mention any prerequisites. The context of sibling tools implies this is for environments, but explicit usage direction is missing.

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