locations_update_recurring_task

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows updates are non-destructive and repeat-safe. However, the description itself provides no behavioral context—e.g., whether fields are merged or replaced, whether optional fields clear existing values, or any side effects. Given annotations cover some safety profile, the description adds negligible value here.

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 (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It fails to convey any useful context or structure. A concise description should still front-load key information; this one provides none.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, a nested recurrence object, and no output schema. The description provides no information about the update semantics, return value, or how recurring rules interact. Given the complexity, the description is severely incomplete and does not help an agent correctly invoke the tool.

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 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive label. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline 3. The nested rruleOptions object has required subfields, but the description doesn't explain how to use them; that's left entirely to the schema.

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 Recurring Task' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name, adding no new information about the verb or resource. It doesn't clarify what 'update' entails or distinguish this from sibling tools like locations_create_recurring_task or locations_delete_recurring_task. An agent gains no additional insight beyond the name itself.

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. No mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing recurring task ID, or when to prefer update over create/delete. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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