locations_update_custom_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the custom value does not exist, authorization requirements, or side effects. It merely restates the action without any enrichment beyond the 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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified and reads almost like a tautology of the tool name. It does not front-load any useful information; every word is essentially redundant with the name. It is not appropriately sized because it fails to convey any operational details.

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 four parameters and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what a custom value is, how 'id' relates to it, what 'name' and 'value' represent, or any constraints. An agent cannot infer how to call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 description does not mention any parameters. The input schema provides descriptions for 'id' and 'locationId', but 'name' and 'value' are undocumented. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter meanings, but it does not. This leaves two critical parameters unexplained.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('Custom Value'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it does not clarify what a custom value is or how it relates to locations, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like locations_create_custom_value or locations_get_custom_value. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as locations_create_custom_value or locations_get_custom_value. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that would make this the preferred choice. No usage context is given at all.

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