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

Goes well beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics, non-retroactive time zone changes, return of previous values enabling undo, a one-time 10-minute token with invalidation rules, per-call token consumption, and definitions of every data_availability status. It also warns that result strings are untrusted data — prompt-injection guidance no annotation could supply.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the write workflow, then result semantics — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, and the trailing Korean cost note plus the five-way data_availability enumeration add bulk, but each clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that results carry previous values and always include data_availability with defined meanings (notably that no_rows/access_error do not mean zero). For a destructive multi-step write tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: only the settings actually sent are changed (partial update), the token expires in 10 minutes and works once, and argument changes void it. It does not add format detail for currency/timezone beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Change settings of a selected Google Analytics property') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, time zone, currency, industry category). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like google__analytics__measurement__create and __audit without opening any 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?

Gives strong operational guidance on the two-step write flow: first call returns a preview and token, second call with identical args + token executes, changing args invalidates the token. It does not explicitly name alternatives (create for new properties, audit) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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