gmb_v4_accounts_locations_localposts_patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of using an update mask, implying partial updates. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the full updated resource is returned. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the HTTP method and path, then states the action. No redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 description provides the essential action and path but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and the exact format of the update mask. It also does not mention prerequisites like the local post existing. For a patch operation with no output schema, the description carries more responsibility, and while the path and method are clear, the incomplete parameter details leave 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 low (33%), with only 'body' having a generic description. The description adds meaning to 'updateMask' by indicating its role, and 'name' is implicitly identified in the path template. 'body' is not explained beyond the schema's generic reference. The description partially compensates for the schema gaps but not fully.

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's function: 'Updates a local post using an update mask.' It uses a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('local post'), and the mention of 'PATCH' and the path template distinguishes it from sibling operations like create, delete, and get.

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 gives clear context: it updates an existing local post via PATCH with an update mask. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb and method make the intended use apparent. No exclusions or misleading guidance are provided.

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