gmb_accounts_locations_admins_patch

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the constraint that only the AdminRole can be updated, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, or response behavior, so it only partially covers the behavioral envelope.

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, easy to parse, and free of fluff. It includes the raw HTTP path prefix 'PATCH v1/{+name}', which is not actionable for an agent, but the overall structure is concise and front-loaded with the core 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, a nested body, and no output schema, yet the description is very brief. However, the schema provides comprehensive parameter details and annotations cover safety behaviors, so the description is passable but leaves usage context and response expectations unaddressed.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that the AdminRole is updatable, which is already stated in the schema's role and updateMask fields, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool as an update operation for location admins, specifying the resource (Admin) and the scope (specified location). It distinguishes from create/delete/list siblings through the 'Updates' verb and 'location' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly mention the account admin equivalent.

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 alternatives such as gmb_accounts_locations_admins_create or gmb_accounts_accounts_admins_patch. The description only states what the tool does, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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