Update dataset

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'repeating the same call leaves the dataset in the same state' largely restates the annotation. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations by clarifying partial-update semantics ('fields left empty are not changed'), but it never explains that a supplied description overwrites the existing one, which is the destructive behavior the annotation flags.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The closing sentence about returning the updated dataset record is redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, a minor wasted line.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece (partial-update semantics) and need not explain return values. An agent could call this correctly; only the overwrite behavior of description and the role of the two ID parameters remain implicit.

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%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does for the two meaningful optional parameters: at least one of name/description must be supplied, and the empty-string default means 'no change'. project_id and dataset_id are left unexplained, but they are self-evident identifiers whose required status is already encoded in 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Rename a dataset or change its description') and scopes it to exactly two mutable fields, which separates it from versioning siblings like create_dataset_version and read siblings like get_dataset. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'Pass at least one of name or description' gives a real precondition for invocation, and the rename-or-re-describe framing implies the context of use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_dataset_version (content changes) or get_dataset, so usage is only implied rather than routed.

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