locations_put_location

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

The description adds the token requirement, which is useful. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already provide some behavioral context, so the bar is lower. However, the description fails to disclose whether the operation creates or updates a sub-account, which is a key behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence, efficiently combining the operation name and auth requirement. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, it may be too terse for the tool's complexity, but that's a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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?

With 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is drastically under-specified. It doesn't mention that locationId likely determines create vs update, doesn't explain the required companyId, or the overall effect of the operation. The description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 description coverage is 94%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description itself adds zero parameter-specific information, so it doesn't add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Put Sub-Account (Formerly Location)' which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential siblings like locations_create_location or locations_update_location, as there is no explicit mention of create vs update semantics.

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 only usage guidance is the authentication prerequisite ('requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'). There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention that it can create or update based on locationId, and no exclusions or context on scenarios. This leaves the agent without direction.

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