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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies that only the description field is mutated (not other business data) and that the value drives business classification and dashboard/default tailoring. It stops short of stating overwrite semantics or length limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping constraint and the alternative. Minor redundancy: 'used to classify the business' is stated twice across the two sentences.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, the alternative tool, and the downstream effect of the value. Missing only edge details such as whether an existing description is replaced and any length constraint.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented, so the schema carries the syntax burden. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that this free text is consumed for classification and dashboard/default selection, which tells the agent what a good value looks like.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Set ONLY the free-text what-we-do description') and explicitly scopes it away from other business fields. It names the sibling tool update_business so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (setting only the description) and when to use the alternative (name, contact, currency, tax fields -> update_business). The ONLY scoping plus the named alternative leaves nothing to inference.

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