gbp_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and it only reveals that the operation creates something. It does not mention side effects, Google Business Profile post limits, topic-type-specific payload behavior, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good for scannability. However, it is undersized for a tool whose payload schema is deeply nested, so the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

The tool is complex, with four topicType values that conditionally require event, offer, or callToAction blocks plus nested date and time objects, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate. The description explains none of these interactions, so an agent must reverse-engineer the nested schema to build a valid post. This is adequate only for the simplest standard posts.

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 only 50% at the top level, and the large nested post object has no description, while the tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the phrase GBP location, which duplicates the schema's Location resource name. The conditional meaning of topicType, which nested blocks apply to each value, is left undocumented by both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb (Creates) and a specific resource (a new post on a GBP location), so an agent can identify this as a write operation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the create verb inherently distinguishes it from read/list siblings like gbp_list_posts and gbp_get_location. A clear but not maximally differentiated definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over gbp_list_posts or gbp_update_location, and no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a valid location parent from gbp_list_locations. The only usage signal is the verb Creates, which restates the tool's purpose. Routing and precondition discovery are left entirely to the agent.

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