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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: only passed fields are changed, empty summary preserves existing text, the prior text is read and returned alongside the new text, the post is read back to detect silent no-ops, confirm=false previews, and Google's refusal reasons are passed through. These details are highly relevant for a destructiveHint=true mutation.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the core action before routing details. Every sentence adds operational value: the stale-post scenario, parameter formatting, field-update behavior, readback verification, and safety preview.

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?

Given the tool's mutation complexity, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It even explains return behavior and failure handling, which the output schema alone would not convey contextually.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for most parameters: it explains post ID formats, the meaning of empty summary, the cta_type enum values, cta_url behavior for CALL, and confirm preview semantics. The required location parameter is not described, leaving one gap.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: editing an already-published Google Business Profile post in place, including text or call-to-action button, without deleting it. It explicitly distinguishes this from delete-and-repost behavior and names the source of the post identifier, gbp_list_posts.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use scenario (a live post is stale) and explains why the alternative of deleting and re-posting is harmful because it resets the original date. It also mentions the fallback of deleting and re-creating if Google refuses the edit, and previews the edit with confirm=false.

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