manage_google_business_media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds behavior those hints cannot convey: deletion is permanent and public-facing, single-slot categories replace rather than append, and every mutation follows a mandatory preview-then-confirm handshake with a preview_id. That preview/confirm protocol is the critical safety behavior and is absent from all structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then organized per action, with zero filler sentences. The telegraphic 'action=add (source_url, category):' style is dense but scannable; the only structural weakness is that the preview/confirm protocol — arguably the most important rule — is placed last rather than stated up front.

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 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, action-scoped parameters, side effects, and the confirmation protocol, plus the fact that a preview returns a preview_id. It leaves the account_id/workspace_id scoping and the media_format semantics to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 cross-parameter meaning: source_url and category are add-only, media_name is delete-only and must come from list_google_business_media, and preview_id must accompany confirm=true. It does not explain media_format's role beyond the schema, nor account_id vs location_id selection, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ('Change a Google Business Profile gallery') and immediately disambiguates with the parenthetical '(the photos and videos shown on Maps and Search)'. The two supported actions (add/delete) are enumerated, and it clearly separates this tool from list_google_business_media and upload_media by name.

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?

Explicitly states the alternative for each operation: use upload_media first for add, and pull media_name from list_google_business_media for delete. It also states the when-not/when-careful conditions: COVER and PROFILE are single-slot and replace the existing item, and delete permanently removes from the public profile.

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