zernio_update_gmb_location_details

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

The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the update overwrites existing data, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but does address these aspects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant words or structure issues.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but is incomplete in explaining return values, required vs optional parameters, and how this tool fits with sibling GMB tools. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds only a list of field names that mirror the schema property names. It does not provide additional meaning such as formatting constraints (e.g., hours as JSON string) beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it updates GMB location details and lists six specific fields (name, address, phone, hours, website, description). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling GMB update tools like zernio_update_gmb_attributes or zernio_update_gmb_food_menus, which could lead to ambiguity.

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 other GMB update tools, nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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