Update business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about which fields are mutable, whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether unrelated fields are preserved, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single four-word sentence is technically concise, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, matching the LOW calibration pattern. There is no front-loaded substance for an agent to act on.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested data object, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry far more weight than it does. The annotations supply the safety hints, which is the only thing keeping this above a 1.

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 description coverage is only 50%: the data object lists candidate fields (name, industry, country, website_url, phone, primary_contact_id, agency_affiliated), while business_id carries no description at all. The description text contributes zero parameter meaning, so the 50% gap is left entirely unaddressed.

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?

"Update a business" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no distinguishing information. It does convey a verb (update) and resource (business), but with ~100 sibling tools it never differentiates itself from reddit_ads_update_ad_account, reddit_ads_update_campaign, or reddit_ads_update_post.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative appears anywhere in the description. An agent gets no signal about when updating a business is the right call versus reading it via reddit_ads_get_business or listing via reddit_ads_list_businesses.

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