gtm_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the list action returns up to 50 items per page, but fails to disclose side effects of actions like 'remove' (destructive), 'update' (mutability), or 'revert' (reversibility). Authentication and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 concise with two sentences and no fluff. However, it could be structured to separate group actions or clarify action-specific details.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values per action, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a multi-action tool, more contextual detail is needed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting list pagination limits. It does not explain how parameters relate to each action (e.g., which action requires which fields).

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 the tool handles all folder operations: create, get, list, update, remove, revert, entities, moveEntitiesToFolder. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on other GTM resources) by specifying the resource type (folder). However, it does not explain what 'entities' or 'revert' actions entail.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools handle different resources (e.g., gtm_tag, gtm_trigger), the description does not provide context-specific usage or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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