Update location attributes

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, detailing PATCH semantics, the attributeMask default/clearing behavior, the required value formats (BOOL/ENUM, uriValues, repeatedEnumValue), and the rate limit cap. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, with no contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured, with four sentences each containing essential information: purpose, attribute format, mask default/clearing, and rate limit. It is front-loaded with the tool's action and has no filler, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (attribute update with flexible value types, mask logic) and the availability of strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects for selection and invocation. It explains how to use the tool effectively, including edge cases like clearing attributes, and even mentions the per-profile rate cap. No output schema exists, but the description's operational detail is sufficient for an update operation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter understanding substantially. It explains the source of attribute names from list_attribute_metadata's parent field, the allowed value shapes for the attributes array, and the default behavior of attributeMask. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and provides critical usage nuance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Updates attributes of a location (PATCH)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_location by focusing on attributes, and references list_attribute_metadata for attribute IDs, providing scope and precision.

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, including how to construct attributes (name + value types), how attributeMask defaults to passed attribute names, and how to clear attributes by naming them in the mask with no values. It also mentions the rate limit cap. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context makes the intended use clear.

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