social_media_posting_set_google_locations

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'set' – no mention of side effects, whether existing locations are overwritten, required permissions, or response behavior. The openWorldHint=true suggests uncertain behavior, but the description provides no clarity.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the brevity contributes to its inadequacy – it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is simple, but every word adds little beyond the name.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 nested objects, no output schema, no descriptions for the nested objects), this description is severely incomplete. It omits what the 'location' object should contain, how 'account' relates to 'accountId', and the expected response format. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the available information.

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?

The description provides zero information about parameters. The schema lists 5 parameters, with 'account' and 'location' being unstructured objects with no descriptions (additionalProperties: {}) – the description does nothing to explain these critical inputs. With schema coverage at 60%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters but does not.

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 clear verb and resource ('Set google business locations'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling social_media_posting_get_google_locations. However, it essentially restates the tool name with no additional nuance about what 'set' means (e.g., create, update, replace). It is not a tautology but adds little beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like set_accounts or get_google_locations. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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