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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by naming the concrete risk (Google verification, possible temporary suspension for title changes) and by warning that the patch response only returns name/title/websiteUri, so description/phone must be re-read via gbp_get_profile. That is real behavioral context not present in the annotations; it stops short of stating permission requirements or how null fields are treated.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the operation and partial-update rule, with per-parameter notes and the sibling hint last. The field-by-field colon-separated layout is efficient but slightly telegraphic, which costs a little readability.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with 6 undocumented parameters, the description covers the risky field, the sibling boundary, the dry-run path and even the response limitation despite an output schema existing. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: title, description, website_uri, phone, validate_only and workspace each get meaning, including the constraint that title must be the real company name. The dry-run semantics of validate_only are especially valuable since the schema only shows a boolean default.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Stammdaten des Business-Profils ändern') plus the crucial partial-update semantics ('nur übergebene Felder'). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by routing attribute fields to gbp_update_attributes, so an agent can tell the two update tools apart 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?

Explicit conditions are given: title changes require prior confirmation because they trigger a Google review and possible temporary suspension; attribute fields must go through gbp_update_attributes instead; validate_only is offered for a dry run. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use and the named alternative in one place.

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