gmb_lodging_locations_updatelodging

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'updates.' Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation nature is known, but the description does not disclose that updates are partial (updateMask controlled), what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description should still add value; it does not.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the HTTP method and resource. It is concise and free of filler, achieving its purpose with minimal word count.

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?

Despite the complex schema with many nested objects and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal and does not explain update semantics, response format, or the critical role of updateMask. The schema covers parameters, but the tool's behavior and return value remain unexplained, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself provides no parameter information, but the schema includes detailed descriptions for each field, including the updateMask parameter. No additional semantics are added beyond the schema, so the middle score 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 clearly states the action (PATCH/update) and the resource (Lodging of a specific location). It distinguishes from read-only lodging tools like getlodging, but does not elaborate on scope beyond the resource name. A solid, specific statement, though not as rich as the high benchmark.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer updating over reading, or when a different update tool (e.g., locations_patch) should be used. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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