gtm_zone

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions pagination behavior ('list' returns up to 20 items per page), but does not disclose destructive nature of 'remove' or 'update' actions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with mutating operations, this is insufficient.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and adds a key behavioral note. Slightly more structure or clarity on action-specific behavior could improve it, but 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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, multiple mutating actions, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how the createOrUpdateConfig parameter works. Many important contextual details are missing.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions). The description adds one behavioral detail (list action pagination) but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs various zone operations and lists the specific actions (create, get, list, update, remove, revert), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gtm_container or gtm_tag. The verb 'performs' combined with the resource 'zone operations' is specific.

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 the tool is for managing zones, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for containers use gtm_container). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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