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

The description explicitly labels the operation as a mutation and provides the concrete API endpoint POST /v1/profiles/{profileId}/locations, which adds useful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not describe permissions, response behavior, or any irreversibility details, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 description is compact and front-loads the mutation warning and purpose. Each sentence carries practical information: endpoint, required fields, passthrough usage, and path-body separation.

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 mutation tool with rich schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description gives enough to call it correctly, including required fields and body/path handling. It does not state what the API returns or describe side effects beyond mutation, but no output schema exists and the core invocation guidance is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it reiterates required kind and strategy, explains how fields is used for value/notes/other documented fields, and clarifies that profileId is path-only and not sent in the body.

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 specific verb and resource: it adds a location to a YouCanBookMe profile. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read/list tools such as list_locations and from booking/team-member creation tools.

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 context is clear: this is the creation/mutation path for a profile location, and it names the required fields. It does not explicitly route against alternatives like list_locations for checking existing locations, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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