gmb_accounts_accounts_admins_create

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context that the invitee must accept the invitation before gaining access, clarifying the tool does not immediately grant admin rights. It doesn't mention permissions or error conditions but sufficiently builds on the annotation baseline.

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 three concise sentences. The first gives the method and resource, the second explains the invitation behavior, and the third references a related tool. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description could have explained response structure, but the input schema covers the pendingInvitation field as output-only. The description adequately covers the creation flow and next steps, though it doesn't mention what the response will look like or potential errors.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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's purpose: 'POST v1/{+parent}/admins' invites a user to become an account administrator. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for the specified account' and mentions the invitation acceptance flow. This is a specific verb+resource match.

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 clear context for use (creating an account admin invitation) and points to an alternative via 'See AcceptInvitation to programmatically accept an invitation.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with location admin creation (gmb_accounts_locations_admins_create) or mention when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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