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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the real-world consequence: the change is public as soon as Google accepts it, so the user must confirm first. It also clarifies that only uri and placeActionType are mutable and that unpassed fields are preserved. The idempotency/retry behavior is already covered by annotations, so no credit is needed there.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then side effects and sibling routing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is mutable, how to obtain the required identifier, the public-visibility consequence, and where to go for create/delete. Nothing material is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: only uri and placeActionType can change, and only the ones actually passed (partial-update semantics), plus the provenance of the required `name`. It doesn't restate the enum values or idempotencyKey rules, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (an existing action link on the Google Business listing) and immediately disambiguates what an action link is (the Book, Order or Reserve buttons). It also names the create and delete siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing rules: 'To add a new one use create_gbp_action_link; to remove one, delete_gbp_action_link.' It also states the prerequisite (the link `name` comes from get_gbp_listing with include ["placeActions"]) and a human-confirmation gate before calling.

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