gmb_qanda_locations_questions_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the deprecation status and the ownership requirement (current user only). It does not elaborate on side effects or authorization, but the annotations cover the core behavioral profile, so this is adequate.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the key information. However, the first sentence '[DEPRECATED] DELETE v1/{+name}' largely repeats the tool name and HTTP method, providing marginal value. The second sentence is substantive and concise, but the redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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, the description combined with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and full schema coverage is sufficient. It states the action, resource, ownership constraint, and deprecation. No output schema exists, but a delete tool doesn't need extensive return-value documentation. The lack of explicit prerequisites beyond ownership is a minor gap.

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 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for all parameters including the required 'name' pattern and optional fields like 'fields' and 'quotaUser'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 action 'Deletes a specific question written by the current user.' It specifies the resource (question), the operation (delete), and the scope (written by the current user), which distinguishes it from related question tools like create, patch, and list. The sibling list confirms distinct tools for questions, 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 description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The '[DEPRECATED]' label implies it should not be used for new integrations, but no replacement tool is named. The 'written by the current user' constraint gives an implicit usage condition but no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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