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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful scope note that it touches public display and address fields, but it says nothing about partial-vs-full replacement semantics or what data may be overwritten despite the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. It opens by repeating the tool title verbatim, which is minor redundancy, but there is otherwise no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema plus annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive mutation with ten optional fields and only 'id' required, the description never clarifies whether this is a partial update or a replace, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling it.

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 all ten fields (id, city, state, address1/2, postal_code, slug, name, display_name, store_code) are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'public display and address details' loosely maps to the display_name and address group but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Update ... a project location') and narrows the scope to 'public display and address details,' which helps distinguish it from siblings like updateReviewLocation or updateBranding. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state what it is not, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related updateReviewLocation, updateBranding, or createLocation tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for editing an existing location.

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