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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) by stating that only sent fields change, that changes appear on the live locator immediately, that an invalid value saves nothing (atomicity), and that visible=false hides without deleting. It also distinguishes merge semantics (fields, calls_to_action) from replace semantics (filters), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the write/PATCH semantics before the field-level rules, and uses compact notation (hours:{mon:'09:00-17:00'}) efficiently. It is dense and close to overloaded for a single paragraph, but for a 29-parameter mutation little of it is expendable.

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?

Covers mutation semantics, permissions, atomic failure and clearing rules, which is what an agent needs to call this safely across 29 parameters. The main gap is that with no output schema, the description never says what a successful call returns, so an agent can't anticipate the response shape.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by consolidating the null-clearing model (phone/email/url/socials/cover), the hours day-level vs whole-schedule null distinction, and the merge-vs-replace contract for fields, calls_to_action and filters. Some of this restates the schema, and it doesn't explain the lat/lng-together rule carried only in 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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and update model: "WRITE: change selected fields of one location with a partial update (PATCH)". This cleanly separates it from the create/get/list siblings without the agent needing to open a 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 actionable context: needs the location:update permission, and explicitly routes the hide-don't-delete case to visible=false. It does not, however, name storerocket_create_location or get_location as the alternative for other intents, so sibling routing is only partly covered.

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