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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the write-scope authorization requirement, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared) or what exactly gets destroyed.

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, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the scope constraint. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 destructive, idempotent update with a fully-documented 7-param schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope requirement. However, it omits the key semantic question for updates: whether this is a full replace or a partial patch, which matters given the destructive hint.

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% with 7 well-documented parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is 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 ('Update an existing location') and anchors it to the identifier ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what entity is being modified. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_location_type or create_location, but the name/scope pair is clear enough to route correctly.

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 names a prerequisite ('Requires locations:write scope') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_location_type or bulk_update. Usage is implied by the verb but not elaborated.

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