gmb_actions_locations_placeactionlinks_patch

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only that the updated link is returned, but fails to disclose potential failures like the ALREADY_EXISTS error when a link with the same uri and place_action_type already exists, or that marking a link as preferred can unset another link's preference.

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 and front-loaded: 'PATCH v1/{+name}. Updates the specified place action link and returns it.' The only minor redundancy is repeating the 'PATCH' from the tool name, but overall it is brief and to the point.

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 complex mutation with 7 parameters, a nested body, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that updateMask is required, that only certain fields are editable, or the ALREADY_EXISTS error condition. The schema carries the detail, but the description leaves high-level semantics unclear.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema thoroughly documents each field, including the required updateMask and its semantics. The description itself does not compensate further, but it does not need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Updates the specified place action link and returns it', identifying both the verb (updates) and the resource (place action link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the create/delete/list siblings, nor does it mention the required updateMask parameter or that only specific fields (uri, place_action_type, is_preferred) are editable. The intended use is only implied by the word 'updates'.

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