businesses_update_business

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, required permissions, or irreversible changes. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds zero value on transparency.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks front-loaded scoping or key details. A single phrase 'Update Business' is not an informative summary; it is a label.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this tool requires substantial context to be used correctly. The description provides none, making it completely inadequate for an agent to understand what fields to update, how to structure the request, or what to expect in response.

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%, and the description mentions none of the 11 parameters. It does not even hint which fields are updatable or that businessId is required. The agent is left guessing about parameter meaning from type names alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 'Update Business' is essentially the same as the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what fields can be updated, what kind of business, or any scope. It is tautological and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like businesses_create_business or businesses_delete_business.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when it should not be used, or how it relates to other businesses_* tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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