update_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is destructive (overwrites vs merges), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 16 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, how updates are applied, what the response contains, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 provides zero information about parameters beyond the generic 'update_location' object name. With schema description coverage at 0% and 16 nested parameters documented only in the schema, the description fails to add any semantic meaning about what can be updated (name, description, metadata, etc.) or how updates work. This leaves parameters completely undocumented in the description text.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing location in the knowledge graph'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_location' by specifying 'existing' rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_artifact' or 'update_quest' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing location ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations like 'update_nodes' or 'update_edges'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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