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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains the partial-update semantics, the brand object's governance over generated copy, and that it returns the full updated object. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover every side effect (e.g., irreversible changes).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and each clause adds useful information (brand effect, return value, space scoping). No words are wasted, and the structure is logical.

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 returns the full updated object, which is stated, and the description covers scoping and partial-update behavior. Nested object details are appropriately deferred to the OpenAPI spec. For a complex update tool with no output schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning, especially for the `brand` parameter, which is explained as a voice profile governing copy. It also clarifies `space_id` scoping. The `business_id` parameter is not described directly but is self-evident from the name.

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 opens with 'Partial update of a business,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list siblings. It also elaborates on the brand object and its effect, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context on when to use this tool, notably the space scoping behavior and how to override it via space_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (like create_business) but implies partial updates versus other operations.

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