gbp_update_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that the operation mutates; it does not explain updateMask partial-update semantics (only listed fields are modified), what happens to fields not in the mask, authentication requirements, or response behavior. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded ('Updates'). Every word earns its place. It loses the fifth point because the brevity is achieved by omitting substance rather than by distilling rich content.

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 tool has moderate complexity (3 required params, nested object, field-mask semantics) with no annotations and no output schema. The one-sentence description doesn't cover what the call returns, how updateMask governs partial updates, valid values for the nested fields, or how to source the location name. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without looking elsewhere.

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 67% (name and updateMask have descriptions; location does not). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states. The nested location object's fields (title, websiteUri, phoneNumbers) lack semantic descriptions, and the description fails to compensate for the undocumented location parameter or clarify how updateMask interacts with the location object.

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 clear verb ('Updates') and a resource ('a GBP location's information'), and the sibling set (gbp_get_location, gbp_list_locations) makes the read-vs-write distinction inferable. However, 'information' is vague and doesn't indicate which fields can be updated, and the sentence borders on merely restating the tool name. It's minimally viable but lacks specificity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent would not know that the location 'name' should first be obtained via gbp_list_locations or gbp_get_location, nor when to choose this over other GBP mutation tools like gbp_create_post or gbp_reply_review. The description provides zero decision support.

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