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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context beyond annotations — the 'locations:write' scope requirement — but says nothing about failure modes or side effects.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the auth prerequisite follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully-specified create tool with no output schema, annotations carrying the mutation profile, and the auth scope disclosed, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain (sibling routing, effect of an unknown building_id), warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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% and all six fields, including the two required ones, are already documented with constraints in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new location') and adds the scoping constraint 'within a building,' which usefully distinguishes it from create_building and create_location_type. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent among the many create_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies context (locations are nested under a building) and states the required write scope, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming an alternative such as create_project_location. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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