set_preferred_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation ('Set'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is persistent, error conditions, or side effects. It mentions a return value but provides no details on format or potential errors.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain authentication requirements, error handling, persistence of the setting, or how this interacts with other operations. The return value mention is vague ('Dictionary confirming...') without specifics.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'location_id', explaining it's 'the unique identifier for the store location'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('preferred store location'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'get_preferred_location' by indicating this is a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other location-related tools like 'search_locations' or 'check_location_exists'.

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., authentication status), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_preferred_location' or 'search_locations'.

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