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

With annotations only providing false hints for readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive, the description adds meaningful behavior: the backend analyzes the image if description is omitted, and the tool returns a location_id for reuse. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't disclose potential side effects or validation rules.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently conveys creation, the optional-description behavior, and the output usage without extraneous words.

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 create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow (image URL -> location reference), the optional-description behavior, and the required output hint (location_id). It stops short of describing full response structure or error cases, but the essential context for an agent to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, including the optional description field and its image-analysis fallback. The tool description repeats this internal behavior but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the score is at baseline 3, with no significant value added by the 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a reusable location/scene reference') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_location and list_locations by focusing on creation. It also states the intended downstream use in propose_brief/update_brief, which solidifies its unique role.

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 explicitly instructs to use the returned location_id in propose_brief/update_brief, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow reference implies the use case sufficiently.

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