gmb_qanda_locations_questions_answers_upsert

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the one-answer-per-question limitation and the fact that the answer is 'written by the user.' It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful extra detail beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus the HTTP path. Every piece of information (deprecated, endpoint, action, constraint) earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and a nested object schema, but no output schema. The description explains the core purpose and a key constraint, but does not mention what the response contains (e.g., the created/updated Answer object) or any auth requirements. For a mutation tool without an output schema, this is a notable gap, though the parameter schema is comprehensive.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter semantics, but it does tie 'parent' to 'the specified question' and clarifies the answer action. Since the schema carries the load, 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 a specific action: 'Creates an answer or updates the existing answer written by the user for the specified question.' The verb-resource pairing is explicit, and the constraint 'A user can only create one answer per question' adds specificity. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like gmb_qanda_locations_questions_answers_delete and gmb_qanda_locations_questions_answers_list.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to write an answer, creating or updating), and the 'one answer per question' rule implies updating an existing answer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., to delete an answer use the delete tool). The '[DEPRECATED]' flag provides some caution but no alternative.

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