pine_send_location_selection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Submit a location selection' with no mention of side effects, confirmation, error handling, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short but includes an 'Args' section that largely repeats the parameter names. It is not overly verbose, but could be more concise by integrating parameter descriptions naturally.

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?

Despite required parameters and an output schema (presumed), the description does not explain what the tool returns or any post-conditions. For a submission action with three required parameters, more context is needed.

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 0%, yet the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. 'places' is described as 'Selected place objects from Pine's provided options,' which is vague. session_id and message_id are merely restated. The description does not explain format, structure, or constraints of the objects.

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 clearly states the action: 'Submit a location selection from options Pine provided.' It specifies verb ('Submit') and resource ('location selection') and implies it's from prior options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'pine_send_location_response', which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pine_send_location_response or pine_send_form_response. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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