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

Annotations mark this destructive and idempotent; the description adds material context beyond them: partial-update semantics, the required role, and the fact that the operation always prompts for confirmation. It does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means here (e.g. that promoting a new main location demotes the current one), which remains only in the schema.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and field lists grouped efficiently; no filler. The semicolon-chained clauses are readable but the enumeration of fields is slightly long for what it conveys.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing critical pieces: partial-update semantics, authorization, and confirmation behavior. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by listing all editable fields and clarifying that 'location' accepts either current name or id. The 'main: true' behavior restates the schema's own parameter description rather than adding to it, so the net gain over the schema is modest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change one of the organization's locations') and enumerates the mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from location.create in the sibling list. It also states the lookup key (current name or id). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Only the fields given change' tells the agent this is a partial update rather than a replace, and 'The organization's Owner or an Admin only; always asks first' gives both a permission constraint and a confirmation requirement. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling alternative is given, which keeps it below a 5.

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