gmb_accounts_accounts_admins_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself, but it does not contradict annotations and confirms the destructive nature. It lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, or response behavior, but the bar is lower given the annotations.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource. It contains no filler and is efficiently structured for quick scanning.

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 simple delete operation with one required parameter, the description, combined with the schema and annotations, is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the operation and resource. It could mention the response or error behavior, but given the lack of an output schema and typical delete semantics, it is adequate.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 verb+resource: 'Removes the specified admin from the specified account.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'account' rather than location, and from create/patch/list operations by the verb 'removes'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of account-level vs location-level admins, nor any exclusion such as 'for location admins, use gmb_accounts_locations_admins_delete instead.' The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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