gmb_actions_locations_placeactionlinks_create

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the duplicate-detection rule: if parent, URI, and place_action_type match a previous request, the request is considered duplicate. It also notes that the created link is returned. This is useful and does not contradict any annotation.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then add a key behavioral note. There is no waste, and the HTTP method/path prefix is not redundant enough to detract.

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 operation with a comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, return value, and a significant behavioral detail (duplicate handling). It does not describe the exact return shape, but 'returns it' is adequate given no output schema. The schema fills in required fields, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 documents all six parameters, including their descriptions and required status. The description only references three fields (parent, uri, place_action_type) in the duplicate-detection context, which is more behavioral than parameter-level semantics, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 specific action ('Creates a place action link') and the target resource ('associated with the specified location'), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD operations like delete/get/list/patch. It also mentions the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied (use when you need to create a place action link), but the description does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as patch or delete, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it lacks the richer guidance of a score 4.

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