locations_create_location

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects, return values, or any other behavioral details, but given the annotations cover the basic nature, the addition is moderate.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create Sub-Account') and then immediately gives the critical usage constraint (token requirement). It is concise and free of fluff, earning a high score for structure.

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 (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what a sub-account/location is, when to use it in a typical workflow, or what the response will be. Without a clear conceptual context, an agent may struggle to correctly use this tool despite the rich schema. This is a significant gap for such a complex 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?

The input schema covers 94% of the 16 parameters with descriptive text for each, so the schema already provides solid parameter semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear action ('Create') on a specific resource ('Sub-Account') and notes its former name ('Location'). It is distinct from sibling tools by name and the verb-resource pairing is explicit. However, it does not elaborate on what a sub-account/location represents in the domain, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the context.

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 an important prerequisite by stating it requires an agency-level token and not a location PIT. This helps an agent determine when the tool is applicable. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool, so guidance on choosing between this and similar creation tools is missing.

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