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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context on top: it discloses the clearing convention ('empty string clears it'), the per-field effects (carrier confirmation emails, driver check-in texts), and partial-update semantics for omitted fields. It does not contradict the destructive/idempotent hints, though it never frames the operation as a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement, then one sentence per field, then the partial-update rule. Every sentence carries information, though the field-by-field cadence reads slightly list-like rather than prioritized.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and the partial-update contract well. It omits what happens on an invalid locationId and whether changes are scoped to a team, but for a settings-mutation tool supported by idempotent/destructive annotations this is close to sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the full load, and it does so for all three optional parameters: notifyEmail's purpose plus its empty-string sentinel, emailNotificationsEnabled's on/off meaning, and smsCheckInEnabled's driver-facing effect. Only locationId is left unexplained, which is acceptable for an obvious required key.

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 and resource with a clear scope: 'Change who hears about bookings at a location.' That is unambiguous and far more informative than the title restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling update_location_settings, which is the only missing piece for 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?

The description explains per-field behavior but never says when to reach for this tool versus the related update_location_settings or update_location_details siblings, nor does it state conditions or prerequisites. 'Omitted fields are left unchanged' is a useful mechanic, but it is usage mechanics, not when-to-use guidance.

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