gmb_actions_locations_placeactionlinks_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the specific resource pattern, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, permanence of deletion, or side effects. Given annotation coverage, the additional value is modest.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and action ('DELETE'), immediately stating what the tool does. There is no redundant information or filler, making it maximally efficient.

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 a well-covered schema and annotations indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose. It is slightly less complete because it doesn't mention any post-deletion effects or authorization requirements, but the annotations compensate, so it's 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including the meaning of 'name' as the resource name to remove. The description's mention of 'v1/{+name}' confirms the template but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'place action link from the specified location', making it unmistakable what this tool does. It also includes the HTTP DELETE method and path template, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and patch for the same resource.

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 by the word 'Deletes' and the resource name pattern, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this should not be used, so it falls short of clear usage direction.

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