set_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It adds that the location persists to config, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overriding previous location), authorization requirements, or rate limits. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds parameter guidance. Every word is earned; no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity (4 optional parameters, simple setter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, when to use it, and how to use it. It could mention error handling or output format, but the output schema likely covers returns. The description is nearly complete for this simple tool.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that lat+lon or address_id are alternative ways to provide the location, which adds semantic grouping. However, it does not explain the 'label' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('delivery location'), and clarifies it is a prerequisite for catalog/cart calls. It clearly states the action but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'use_address', which might also set a location. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 explicitly states that the tool is required before catalog/cart calls, providing a clear usage context. It also specifies the two ways to provide the location (lat+lon or address_id). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, missing the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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