gmb_accounts_accounts_admins_patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the HTTP method 'PATCH' and the 'Account Admin' scope, which is consistent with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as allowed update fields or permissions.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'PATCH v1/{+name}', and contains no filler. It is efficient and to the point, though slightly terse and lacking structure. It earns a 4 for being concise without wasting words.

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 rich schema (7 params, 100% coverage) and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for an experienced user. However, it misses optional guidance like the only editable field being 'role' (present in the schema but not description) and does not mention sibling tools for location admins. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for name, body, fields, updateMask, etc. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the path placeholder '{+name}', which is already documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Updates the Admin' with a clear verb and resource, and scopes it to 'Account Admin'. It distinguishes an update from create/delete siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'for the specified Account Admin' is slightly awkward but understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like gmb_accounts_locations_admins_patch or the create/delete variants. The only implied distinction is the 'Account Admin' scope, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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