update_location

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that an update occurs, but does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, authentication requirements, or side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Given three undocumented parameters and a nested object, this length is not suitable for guiding correct invocation.

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?

The tool requires three parameters, has no output schema, and has no annotations. The description does not explain the data shape, the role of campaignId, or any update behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for campaignId, id, or the nested data object. The data property is completely opaque, leaving the agent without any understanding of what fields can or should be updated.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing location', making the core operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update_* tools, but the resource name in the tool name and description provides sufficient 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_location or delete_location. It implies the target already exists, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusionary information.

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