Update a location

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

Annotations already establish mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency, but the description adds critical non-obvious behavior: PATCH semantics with updateMask, the 10-edits-per-minute hard cap, validateOnly behavior, and that it returns the updated Location. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then the rate-limit caveat, and ends with return type. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers update semantics, an example, validation mode, rate limiting, batching advice, and return value. Sibling tools overlap but the description is complete enough to use correctly.

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 a concrete example showing how location and updateMask interact, and clarifies validateOnly. This exceeds mere schema documentation.

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+resource ('Updates fields of a location') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_location_attributes. It also specifies the PATCH method and the required updateMask, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear usage context: how to pass new values, the role of updateMask, validateOnly for dry-run checks, and a rate limit note advising batching. It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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