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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required authorization scope ('locations:write'), which is information annotations cannot express, but it says nothing about validation failures, duplicate handling, or side effects on the parent building.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and its target are front-loaded before the auth prerequisite. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations establishing the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, the description supplies the key missing piece (auth scope). It is nearly complete, though it omits any mention of parent-entity prerequisites or post-creation behavior.

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 100%, so every parameter including name, building_id, and location_type_id is already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Create a new location') and adds a scoping constraint ('within a building') that implies the building_id parent relationship. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as create_location_type or create_project_location, so it falls short of 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only contextual signal is 'within a building', which is a scoping statement rather than usage direction; an agent must infer that create_building and create_location_type are prerequisites from sibling names alone.

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