update_geo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the plan restriction and the fields being mutated, but it omits side effects, overwriting behavior, authorization needs beyond plan, rate limits, or response format, which is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentence with an active verb and specific field list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, empty tool schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to convey return values, potential errors, parameter structure, or any operational context, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema is empty with additionalProperties: true, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names the updatable fields (TL;DR, dateModified, Person/Author markup), providing some semantics. However, it does not specify exact parameter names, nesting, or value formats, so it does not fully compensate for the missing 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 states a clear action ('Update') and specifies the target fields (TL;DR, dateModified, Person/Author markup), making the primary purpose understandable. However, 'geo' is ambiguous and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update_* tools like update_seo, update_aeo, or update_domain.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is 'PRO plan or higher', which is a plan constraint, not a usage scenario or exclusionary directive.

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