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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile, so the description carries real weight: it discloses the auth requirement (Pro API key in headers), patch semantics ('only the business fields you send change'), and the externally visible side effect of publishing to a live embed. It leaves unanswered what a failed/unpublished save leaves behind.

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?

Dense but efficient: the core write action leads, with the publish side effect and the auth requirement following. The em-dash parentheticals stay readable and no clause is filler, though the single mega-sentence is close to overloaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back (created location id, embed URL, publish status) and it doesn't. Auth, patch semantics and publish behavior are covered, but the return contract for a create-or-update tool is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents publish, location_id, client_id, website_url and the business merge rules. The description reinforces the create-vs-update role of location_id and patch behavior but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource plus the upsert distinction: 'create one, or update one by location_id'. That single clause separates it from get_location/list_locations and tells an agent the tool covers both write paths without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (saving a location, optionally publishing so the client's site updates) and states the Pro API key prerequisite. It doesn't name an explicit alternative or exclusion — e.g. 'to read a location use get_location' — so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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