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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses essentially nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not explain partial-update semantics (are omitted fields left unchanged or cleared?), what happens on an expectedVersion mismatch, whether the update is reversible, or what permissions are needed. The required `expectedVersion` parameter strongly implies optimistic concurrency control, but the description never mentions it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and no wasted clauses. Its brevity is efficient in form but borders on under-specification given the tool's mutation semantics.

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?

Six parameters, three of them required, with no annotations and no output schema means the description must do heavy lifting, and it does not. Critical details — concurrency/version conflict behavior, partial-update semantics, and the role of projectId versus locationId — are absent, leaving the agent under-equipped for a state-changing call.

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 17% (only `description` is documented in the schema), so the description would need to compensate and it does not. It omits `notes`, `projectId`, `locationId`, and most importantly `expectedVersion`, whose versioning semantics are critical to calling the tool correctly and are explained nowhere.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Update a location") and names two target fields, so an agent can immediately tell this is a mutation of an existing location rather than a get/list/create. It falls short of a 5 because it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as location.create, location.get or character.update, and it says "name or description" while the schema also exposes an updatable `notes` field.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an existing locationId, a current expectedVersion), and no reference to the sibling tools that would be the alternative for creating, reading or deleting a location. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely from the name and schema.

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