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

Adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the read-modify-write pattern ('reads the location first and sends the full object'), which tells the agent that omitting a field will not blank it out. However, it never warns about the destructiveHint=true risk surface (e.g. retiring a location detaches employees/time records) and gives no auth or rate-limit context, so the annotation-covered risk profile is only partly elaborated.

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 clauses, the operation type front-loaded as 'WRITE:', then semantics, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

The update semantics and partial-field behavior are well covered, but for a nested-object, 11-parameter mutation the description says nothing about the boolean flags or the onboarding business unit constraint that the schema itself flags as conditionally required. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 27% schema description coverage, the description only glosses name, address and is_active. It leaves identifier, comments, latitude/longitude, is_office, is_time_and_attendance and onboarding_business_unit_id completely unexplained, and 'move' is only an oblique hint at the coordinate pair.

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 (change fields of an existing location), the resource, and concrete example mutations (rename, move, new address, retire via is_active=false). The word 'WRITE' and 'existing location' cleanly separate it from exaktime_create_location and exaktime_get_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?

Makes clear this is the edit path for an existing location and even describes the retire idiom (is_active=false), which is a usage decision an agent would otherwise have to guess. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (create_location for new records, get_location for reads), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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