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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive update. The description adds that the update concerns display and address details, but it omits the internal fields (name, slug, store_code) exposed in the schema, which is a slight mismatch. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The meaningful description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. The first line 'Update Location' is redundant with the tool name and title, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is that it does not clarify whether internal fields like slug and store_code are also updatable, but the schema covers those.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description's phrase 'public display and address details' helps map intent to display_name and address fields, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('project location') and narrows scope to 'public display and address details.' This clearly distinguishes it from create/location, deleteLocation, and listLocations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a location's display or address fields need changing. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, such as createLocation or updateReviewLocation.

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