gmb_accounts_accounts_patch

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: personal accounts cannot be updated. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) and provides additional context about the tool's applicability.

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 highly concise: it states the method, the action, and a critical constraint in three short sentences without any fluff. Information is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 and annotations, the description is sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation. It does not explicitly mention the updateMask requirement or validateOnly parameter, but these are clearly documented in the schema, so the description's brevity does not create a critical gap.

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%, so all parameters are fully described in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already documents all parameters, including updateMask's constraint that only accountName is editable.

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 clearly states the tool updates a specified business account, with a specific verb and resource. The exclusion of personal accounts helps distinguish it from account creation or other account operations. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly provides a when-not guideline: 'Personal accounts cannot be updated using this method.' This tells the agent when not to use the tool, which is sufficient usage guidance even without naming an alternative tool.

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