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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that: it is a POST to /v1/Common/Locations, there is no delete operation, and address/lat-long drive geofencing and maps. What is missing is how the created record is returned (no output schema) and whether duplicate names are rejected.

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?

Three short sentences with the WRITE marker and the resource front-loaded, followed by the practical tip and the lifecycle caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 10-parameter mutation with a nested address object and no output schema, it covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs to call it and to know the record cannot be deleted. The remaining gap is the return value (presumably the new location id), which matters since there is no output schema to describe 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 coverage is 60%, so the schema already documents several fields; the description adds the useful hint that address and latitude/longitude are optional inputs that make geofencing and maps work. It says nothing about identifier, is_office, is_time_and_attendance, or onboarding_business_unit_id, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage 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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource ('create a location (job site or office)') and adds the scope clarification that it covers both job sites and offices. It also names the sibling exaktime_update_location, so the agent can distinguish creation from modification/lifecycle management without opening another schema.

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?

Gives the important lifecycle rule that deactivation goes through exaktime_update_location because there is no delete, which prevents an agent from hunting for a delete tool. It does not cover prerequisites (permissions, whether the location name must be unique), but the create-vs-update routing is explicit.

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