update_geo_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an update occurs, but does not clarify whether missing fields are left unchanged or reset, whether the operation is a partial or full replacement, or what happens if the id does not exist. This lack of detail could lead an agent to assume unsafe behavior.

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 that avoids fluff. It is not tautological like 'Process', but it is so minimal that it skips useful scope information. It could have been slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of the schema (6 params, nested 'areas' object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not mention that only 'id' is required, how to clear optional fields, or any constraints (e.g., whether 'range' must be provided if 'unit' is set). An agent would need to infer update semantics from the schema alone.

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%, with each parameter described (e.g., 'inclusive' explains true/false semantics). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema makes the parameters self-explanatory, but the description could have highlighted relationships like the dependence of 'range' on 'unit'.

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 'Update an existing geo target' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (geo target), distinguishing it from create/delete/get/list siblings. However, it omits any specifics about the scope of updates (e.g., which fields are modifiable), relying on the schema to fill in that detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative targeting tools such as update_postal_code_target or update_list_target. It also does not mention any prerequisites, such as requiring the geo target to exist, or that this tool should be used for modifying geographical targeting rules rather than other targeting types.

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