update_business_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond that: omitted fields are left untouched (merge semantics, not overwrite). It does not mention permission requirements, whether changing tax_id/currency affects existing invoices/quotes, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the mutation semantics front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read/write profile. However, for a 10-param settings mutation with 30% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps: no field range, no note on side effects to existing documents, and no prerequisite/permission context.

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 only 30% (only currency, default_tax_rate and payment_instructions are documented), so the description should compensate more than it does. It does cover the single most important semantic for all 10 optional nullable params — that passing nothing is a no-op and nulls are not written — but says nothing about units/formats for quote_valid_days, payment_terms_days, tax_id, or address.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change business details'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_business_profile. It is clear but does not list the editable field domain, so an agent must open the schema to learn what 'business details' covers.

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?

It implies usage via the partial-update note but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative (e.g., get_business_profile for reading). An agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to get_business_profile from the name alone.

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