gmb_qanda_locations_questions_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Adds' and 'POST' align with that write operation. The deprecated status is additional context beyond annotations, but the description does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, or return behavior. No contradiction exists, but the added transparency is minimal.

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 only two short clauses: '[DEPRECATED] POST v1/{+parent}. Adds a question for the specified location.' It is front-loaded with the deprecation warning, followed by a clear purpose. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy.

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 schema is rich with detailed field descriptions and output-only indicators, but the description does not explain what the response will be (no output schema). It also omits any permissions or prerequisite context. The deprecation note is critical, but overall the description lacks some context an agent would need for confident invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, including fields like parent (required), body, and output-only properties. The tool description itself adds no parameter details—it does not even mention the required parent or the body object. Baseline score applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 'Adds a question for the specified location,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling qanda tools (delete, list, patch) by indicating a create operation. The deprecated marker adds useful context without undermining the purpose.

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 deprecation note is the only usage indication, implying the tool should be used with caution or avoided in favor of newer alternatives, but no substitute tool is named. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this create tool versus the list/delete/patch siblings, though the verb 'Adds' implies creation context.

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