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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful consequences — the location drives generated plates and propagates to shots via scenes — but says nothing about permission needs, what expectedVersion conflicts do, or what happens to existing locations with the same name.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the quality imperative and downstream wiring. No wasted words, and each sentence adds new information.

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?

Adequate for a create tool: purpose, intent, and the follow-up call are covered and no output schema exists to explain. However, with no annotations and 80% of parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks the versioning semantics and identity/return information needed to call it confidently.

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 only 20%; only the 'description' field is documented, and the description text merely nudges the agent to "describe it precisely." The required 'expectedVersion' parameter (clearly an optimistic-concurrency token) and the notes/description distinction are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a recurring location (setting) to the library") and even clarifies the domain term by equating location with setting. It distinguishes creation from sibling operations like location.update and location.generate_plates by framing the location as the reusable source that drives plate generation.

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 concrete downstream workflow guidance: assign to scenes via scene.update locationId, and notes shots inherit it. It does not state exclusions or when not to create a location (e.g., one-off sets), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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