gmb_accounts_locations_transfer

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying owner/manager role requirements and that the transfer is between accounts the same user administers. It does not describe side effects like removal from source, but the annotations and 'Moves' imply this.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, then states the action and conditions in a clear, compact way.

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 transfer action with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisites. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the operation is straightforward and the annotations/schema adequately support the agent.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds role context relevant to destinationAccount, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema contains.

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 identifies the action ('Moves a location') and the specific resource (locations transfer between accounts). It explicitly states the source and destination account relationship, which distinguishes it from other location management operations like create, patch, or delete.

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?

It provides concrete preconditions: the user must be an owner of the source account and at least a manager of the destination account. This gives clear guidance on when the tool can be used, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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