gmb_v4_accounts_locations_media_create

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral detail that media is created from a source URL (implying a fetch), but does not disclose potential failure modes, required permissions, or side effects. This goes slightly beyond annotations but not richly.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource path, followed by a clear action statement. Every word adds value; there is no filler or 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 tool is a create operation with a complex body (MediaItem object, additionalProperties true) and no output schema. The description covers the core action and source, but omits any indication of the response format, required fields beyond source URL, or possible asynchronous behavior. It is minimally complete but leaves important gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides only a generic description for 'body' and none for 'parent', giving 50% coverage. The description compensates by showing the parent path format (accounts/*/locations/*) and by indicating the body must include a source URL, which adds meaning to the ambiguous 'body' parameter.

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 ('Creates a media item') and specifies the resource (media under a location), including the exact HTTP method and path template. It distinguishes from sibling media tools by indicating creation specifically, and 'from a source URL' adds a meaningful qualifier.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_patch (update) or media_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and endpoint.

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