gmb_accounts_locations_admins_create

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

The description discloses that the operation creates an invitation rather than immediate access, which is not captured by the annotations. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the read/write/destructive hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource. Each sentence contributes essential information: the action, the location scope, and the acceptance requirement.

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 create/invite tool with thorough schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the invitation flow and points to a related tool. It does not need to describe return values since no output schema is expected.

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?

All parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Invites') and resource ('administrator for the specified location'), distinguishing it from account-level admin creation. The POST path and reference to AcceptInvitation reinforce its specific role.

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 specifies that this tool is for location admins and mentions the requirement that the invitee must accept. It references AcceptInvitation as a related follow-up, but does not explicitly contrast with account admin creation or other alternatives.

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