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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real beyond-annotation context: partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), conflict behavior for duplicate slugs, and the destructive consequence that changing a slug breaks already-sent carrier links.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the editable fields, then partial-update semantics, then the slug constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and with no output schema, the description covers update semantics, a key constraint (slug format/conflict), and a destructive side effect. The main residual gap is the undocumented city/zip/state parameters.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It richly documents slug semantics (3+ lowercase letters/numbers/hyphens, conflict on reuse, link breakage) and names name/address/timezone/README fields, but omits zip, city, and state entirely, leaving those undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Edit) and resource (a location's name, address, timezone, booking-page URL). An agent can tell it apart from create_location and update_location_settings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling update_location_settings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list and the PATCH-style note that omitted fields are left unchanged, giving useful invocation context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update_location_settings or set_up_location, and no when-not conditions.

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