Reply to a Google Business review

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint` true and `readOnlyHint` false, signaling mutation. The description adds the create/update nature, which is consistent. It does not disclose extra behavioral details such as whether an existing reply is overwritten, permission requirements, or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal added transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then gives the target specification. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes to clarity.

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 has an output schema and the schema documents all parameters with full coverage, the description covers the key usage nuance (review_name vs review_id+location_id). It lacks explicit prerequisites like required permissions or overwrite behavior, but the output schema likely captures the response. The description is adequate for a mutating tool with annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds value by grouping `review_name` as a standalone option and `review_id` + `location_id` as an alternative, clarifying the mutual relationship and how to construct the resource path. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 the specific action ('Create or update the owner reply') and targets a specific resource ('a Google Business review'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the platform and the owner-reply nature, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explains how to specify the target via either `review_name` or `review_id` + `location_id`, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `reply_to_comment` or `public_reply_to_comment`, leaving the condition to the agent's inference. The usage guidance is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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