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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-read-only, and the description corroborates with 'Overwrites those fields' while adding genuinely new context: an owner-only authorization requirement and a required human-approval step. It does not cover idempotency behavior or downstream effects on the attached profile, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by mutation behavior, authorization, and the approval protocol — every sentence earns its place. The phrase 'those fields' is terse and arguably ambiguous given how many fields the schema requires.

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 an eight-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, overwrite semantics, authorization, and a confirmation protocol — the essentials an agent needs before mutating data. What's missing is coverage of the remaining parameters and what the call returns or triggers, but the core is present.

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 only 25%, with agentId and categoryId documented in the schema and the rest bare, so the description carries real weight here. It names business name, category and address but says nothing about countryName, cityName, stateName, zipCode, or the agentId scoping rule for the default business, leaving half the parameters unexplained in either place.

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 (Save) and resource (Business Profile) plus the setup context, which separates it from siblings like onboarding_create_receptionist or onboarding_complete_receptionist_setup. The enumerated fields ('business name, category and address') are incomplete against the eight required parameters, so the scope statement slightly under-sells what the call actually writes.

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?

'During setup' and 'Owner only' establish when and by whom this should be called, and 'Show the exact values and get explicit approval before calling' gives a concrete pre-call protocol. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this, so it falls short of the explicit routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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