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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutation, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds only a category listing. Critically, the key behavior of a `patch` parameter — whether it is a merge/partial update, and whether explicit nulls clear fields — is never stated, nor is any permission or ownership requirement.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the verb+resource, so the agent gets no scannable detail about arguments.

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 mutation tool with a large undescribed nested schema, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits patch merge semantics, which fields are clearable, and what the caller needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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% across a nested 19-property patch object, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. It only gestures at field groups (temporal, provenance, review) without explaining `sourceId`, the meaning of `patch`, or how individual fields behave in a partial update.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update a dataset's ... metadata") and sketches the scope by naming four metadata domains (descriptive, temporal, provenance, review). It distinguishes itself reasonably from unrelated siblings but never contrasts with the close sibling geobble_collection_update_metadata or geobble_project_update_settings, so an agent must infer which metadata-update tool applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative metadata-update tools in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer that this is for dataset sources rather than collections or projects.

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