gtm_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the 'list' action returns up to itemsPerPage items, but lacks information on destructive actions (like remove), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and does not cover critical behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action list. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating actions or adding bullet points) for better readability, but overall it is efficient.

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, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, authentication, error handling, or provide examples. The agent would need to infer many details from the schema alone, which is insufficient for complete understanding of the tool's behavior and integration context.

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 schema already describes all parameters comprehensively. The description adds marginal value by restating the pagination behavior for the 'list' action, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema.

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 GTM custom template operations, listing each action (create, get, list, update, remove, revert). The specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools which address other GTM resources like containers or tags.

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 mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate. The list of sibling tools is provided externally but no differentiation is given.

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