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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say what happens to the previous primary location, whether articles/pages are updated automatically, or what side effects to expect.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The one sentence explains a concept instead of front-loading the action an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely incomplete. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description still does not explain the operation's effect, prerequisites, or expected outcome.

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 description mentions neither the site nor the locationId parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage, locationId is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 defines what a 'primary location' is, but never states that this tool sets or changes the primary location. It restates the title's concept rather than naming a specific action, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as update_business_location or add_business_location.

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 indication of when to call this tool, when not to call it, or what alternatives exist. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a location must already exist or whether the site must be configured.

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